[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 69 (Thursday, May 16, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H5240-H5260]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 1997

  The Committee resumed its sitting.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] is 
recognized for 2 minutes.
  (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the President's 
6-year balanced budget.
  This debate is about much more than dollars and cents--it is about 
our Nation's fundamental priorities and values. The differences between 
the Gingrich budget and the President's budget are very clear. These 
plans offer competing visions for America's future,

[[Page H5241]]

and they present all Americans with a stark choice.
  The President's plan balances the budget and provides tax relief for 
the middle class while protecting key priorities like Medicare, 
Medicaid, education and the environment.
  President Clinton's budget will guarantee Medicare's solvency through 
2005, while giving our seniors greater choice and flexibility. It cuts 
down on fraud and abuse in Medicaid, shakes up the welfare system, and 
provides hard working families with tax credits to pay for college or 
to start a business.
  The Gingrich budget hits the elderly and our children the hardest. 
New York alone will lose $14 billion in Medicare funding and $10 
billion from Medicaid under Newt Gingrich's budget. Seniors will lose 
long-term care and children will be denied health care. Financially 
strapped school systems--like the one in Yonkers, NY, will lose 
millions in Federal aid.
  The choice is clear--the President's balanced budget provides tax 
relief for hard working Americans while protecting the priorities of 
the American people. Newt Gingrich's budget increases spending at the 
Pentagon while slashing Medicare, Medicaid, education and the 
environment.
  Let's listen to what a very senior Republican from my State of New 
York recently had to say about the Gingrich revolution:

       Americans did not vote to cut funding for education and cut 
     funding for the environment and cut funding for programs they 
     care about it.

  Those were Al D'Amato's words--let's take his advice, reject the 
Gingrich budget and support the President's plan.


                      announcement by the chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would caution that Members should avoid 
references to individual Senators.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the latest 
round of Republican Medicare cuts. The American people rejected this 
extreme agenda last year, and I call on my colleagues to reject it 
today. The Medicare cuts contained in the Republican budget are 
designed to create a second-class health care system for America's 
seniors. Their drastic cuts are compounded by dangerous policy 
proposals which will truly force Medicare to ``wither on the vine,'' as 
the Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia, Newt Gingrich, called for last 
year. Under the Gingrich budget seniors will pay more and they will get 
less health care.
  The medical savings accounts in the Republican plan will skim off the 
healthiest and the wealthiest individuals and threaten to leave the 
remaining millions of seniors vulnerable to a weakened Medicare system, 
while increasing their costs. The Republican plan to cut $168 billion 
from Medicare and $72 billion from Medicaid is far more than is 
necessary to ensure the solvency of the trust fund.
  The President's budget proves that. The President's budget makes 
Medicare solvent for the same number of years as the Republican budget, 
but does so without making such deep cuts. So why would the Republicans 
cut so deeply? The answer is $176 billion in tax breaks for the 
wealthiest in our country.
  Mr. Chairman, the American people rejected, out of hand, the extreme 
agenda of the Republican resolution when Speaker Gingrich tried to take 
the country hostage by shutting down the Government and then going home 
for the Christmas vacation. Congress should not slash Medicare and 
Medicaid for millions of America's seniors in order to pay for tax 
breaks for the wealthiest few. It was wrong last year, and it is wrong 
today. I call on my colleagues to reject the Republicans' failed 
agenda.
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 30 seconds to my 
colleague, the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth].
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, listening again to my colleague, the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut, I think back again to the Washington Post editorial that 
talked about Mediscare. Here they go again. Mr. Chairman, the fact is 
this: that spending per patient will increase from $5,200 to $7,000 
under our plan. That is no cut. There is no increase in deductibles, 
copayments, or premiums. And the gentlewoman neglected to admit that 
the Medicare trust fund is $4 billion in arrears. That is 
unconscionable. That is why we must have this budget.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Arizona can continue to 
try to fool the American public, when in fact if you add more seniors 
to the program, if you allow for inflation, the Republican budget in 
fact does cut Medicare for seniors. It allows them to have to pay 
increased deductibles and increases their medical bills, and no matter 
how they want to tell us that they are slowing the rate of growth, they 
really, truly want to see this program changed and it wither on the 
vine, as their leader, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich], has 
talked about.
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr. Hayworth] to respond.


                      announcement by the chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will remind all persons in the gallery that 
they are here as guests of the House, and that any manifestation of 
approval or disapproval of proceedings is in violation of the rules of 
the House.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I would simply remind my friend, the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut, that again she misquotes people, not only 
an interesting use of numbers, but with reference to withering on the 
vine. The full record indicates, as the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
knows, the Speaker was referring to the Health Care Financing 
Administration and some of the problems with socialized medicine that 
existed in the former Soviet Union. That quote has been culled 
incorrectly.
  The gentlewoman from Connecticut knows this, as she also knows the 
fact that we are increasing expenditures per beneficiary. There is no 
dispute with that, nor is there a dispute, Mr. Chairman, with this 
cold, hard fact of reality: The Medicare trust fund is already $4 
billion in arrears.
  I ask my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, at long last, have they no sense 
of decency left? Let us save Medicare for seniors, quit worrying about 
the next election, enact this budget, and save the program.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the very decent 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Hefner].
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, talk about decency; Bob Dole: ``I was there 
fighting the fight, voting against Medicare in 1965 because we knew it 
would not work.''
  ``Now, we didn't get rid of it in round 1, because we didn't think 
that was politically smart, and we don't think that is the right way to 
go through a transition. But we believe it is going to wither on the 
vine.'' The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Newt Gingrich, speaking to the 
Blue Cross-Blue Shield conference on October 24, 1995.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend and 
member of the Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from North Dakota 
[Mr. Pomeroy].
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Arizona is going to take 
exception to quotes, let us talk facts. In fact, the Republican budget 
proposes the deepest cuts in Medicare, future Medicare spending; once 
again, $161 billion over 6 years, compared to $117 billion in the 
President's budget before us.
  Let us look behind these numbers, however, so we understand exactly 
where those cuts fall. One hundred and twenty three billion dollars 
comes from part A, the reimbursements to hospitals and home nursing 
care. There is no way we can take these cuts out of future spending and 
hospitals without devastating the network of essential care provided by 
hospitals all across this country. This cut is deeper than their cut 
last year.
  As regards hospital reimbursement, home health care services so vital 
to seniors, they cut more than they cut last year. I think the American 
people know full well that their budget last

[[Page H5242]]

year on Medicare cuts was reckless, was dangerous, and threatened the 
care of our elderly.
  As regards the part B premium, for those who might elect the managed 
care option under their Medicare revisions, the GOP budget would leave 
unlimited exposure to physician charges. Medicare would cover a portion 
of the physician charges, but whatever the physician wanted to bill in 
addition to that, the senior would be responsible for.
  The bottom line on their budget: Closed hospitals in many parts of 
the country, and higher doctor bills payable out of the pockets of the 
senior citizens of this country.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. POMEROY. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman voting for the 
budget?
  Mr. POMEROY. I am going to vote for the President's budget. I will 
oppose the GOP budget, for the reasons that I am saying.
  Mr. Chairman, another area of important contrast involves the 
Medicaid Program. The Medicaid Program is a major source of 
reimbursement, as members know, for those senior citizens in nursing 
homes without resources. They will, combined with the reductions in 
State funding, devastate reimbursement in the Medicaid Program, and the 
President's budget compares very favorably in this area as well.
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the minority on their 
tactics, because we have been studying them and learning from them. It 
is interesting that in the hour that they came to the floor to support 
the President's budget, they do not have anything good to say about it. 
So what they do is come to the floor and try to attack our budget.
  Every one of them are smart, good, decent people who know that 
Medicare is going bankrupt. They furthermore know that we are 
increasing the number of dollars behind the senior citizen from $4,800 
per senior citizen to $7,000 for each senior citizen.
  But what is curious about this debate is that the plan basically has 
all its savings at the end. Take a typical American diet, I would say 
to the gentleman from Illinois, Henry Hyde; that you are going to lose 
50 pounds this year; you are going to lose 1 pound in the first week 
and 49 in the last week.
  So first of all, it is backloaded. In other words, we put all the 
heavy lifting off for the children of the next century. We have 
children that visit this Capitol every day, and we are asking them to 
do all the heavy lifting, while we kind of get away scot-free. We do 
not want to do that.
  Second, we do not believe in tax increases.
  Third, if the economy has improved so much, why is it the President 
keeps running around talking about wage stagnation and job insecurity? 
It is because it is real. It is because they have not been able to grow 
this economy, to provide job security, permanent jobs, high-paying 
jobs, because the American people do not have the money to save and 
invest and risk-take, and give our workers the tools they need to 
compete and win.
  Finally, everyone on this floor knows that at the end of the day, we 
are going to have to come to grips with entitlement programs. Our 
philosophy is we can manage them better by designing local solutions to 
local problems for less cost.
  But I wish we could spend this hour having you defend or support the 
President's budget, rather than attacking ours. It is a curious way to 
operate, but I think I understand it, when you have so much difficulty 
finding the good reasons to support the President in his very feeble 
efforts.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I have no problem defending the President's budget 
versus that of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich]. The gentleman from 
Ohio worked hard, but the President's is much better, much better for 
education and training, much better potentially for reforming Medicare 
in a fashion that will work.
  The reality is your changes, you add some money up early, your 
provider Medicare cuts are going to have to be deeper in the final 
year, 2002, than they were in your original plan. Why? to accommodate 
your tax cuts. You talk about front end and back end loading. Somehow, 
there is enough money for your tax cut in 1997, for you show a deficit 
increase then, too. Miraculously, your tax cut costs less in 2002 than 
it does in 2001. There is some end loading in the President's, but you 
have the same problem. If you did not want that, if you wanted a nice, 
steady flow, you would have voted for the coalition budget.
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Kasich], chairman of the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, let me just say that it is really dubious 
to make the claim that the President is spending more on any program 
that is in the discretionary accounts, because you have $67 billion in 
unspecified cuts. If we wanted to do a really good job, an effort at 
this in the style of the gentleman from Massachusetts, Ed Markey, we 
would take the $67 billion in cuts and we would hold charts up of the 
children who we think you will hurt, or we will hold up charts of any 
number of discretionary programs and say you are going to cut those.
  The simple fact of the matter is that we have done the most, we have 
been able to accomplish the most amount of change, and you all endorsed 
it. About 2 weeks ago the President of the United States had a budget 
that said we would have spent $7 billion more in 1996 than we spent in 
1995. We said, no, no, we want $23 billion less. And guess what, the 
revolution has come, and guess what, it is winning. And do you know 
why? You all voted for it. You voted for the most massive amount of 
downsizing of Washington spending since World War II. I think it is 
fantastic that you did it.
  Now, for the period of the next 6 years, there is not fundamentally 
that much difference between you and us on Washington spending, because 
you have already endorsed our program. Now what we are asking you to do 
is to endorse the rest of our program that takes entitlement programs 
that are going through the roof, that are threatening to sink the young 
people's future, that are destroying job security and creating wage 
stagnation, and we are saying, look, take the program out of 
Washington, send it home, design a local solution for a local problem. 
And we do not want to have higher taxes on the American people. People 
pay too much in taxes.
  Mr. Chairman, the choices are pretty clear between these two 
alternatives, but I am glad that the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. 
Sabo, is now defending or supporting the President's budget rather than 
focusing on the shortfalls in ours, because we believe strongly in ours 
and we are glad that the gentleman at least believes in his.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just say that we impose discipline on 
discretionary spending. We did it in 1993. I just have to say to my 
friend, the chairman of the committee, I am curious that if it was his 
program that finally passed, why he had to shut the Government for 
Christmas.
  There were some issues at odds: Funding for education, for 
environmental protection, for inspection of safety, very important 
priorities. That is the difference. Frankly, there are very important 
differences over the future: Over educational funding, training, 
research and development; significant differences between the 
President's budget and its potential for doing good things for the 
future of our economy, things that are left out of your budget.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Kasich].
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make the point that the 
President was asking and many of you were asking to spend $7 billion 
more in 1996 than in 1995. We were saying, No, no, we don't want to do 
that. We want to downsize Washington programs and spend less. At the 
end of the day, we ended up spending $23 billion less. You

[[Page H5243]]

wanted $7 billion more, we spent $23 billion less. That is a $30 
billion difference.
  The thing that is so amazing is that we frankly have already won that 
debate, because you all voted for this. There were only 32 votes 
against this appropriation bill that lowers the whole base of spending 
in Washington. It is a terrific accomplishment by this Congress. I want 
to congratulate you for being part of it.
  But when you start this big argument about the difference in 
Washington spending, frankly, folks, that debate is done. You already 
conceded our point. We are going to have the most massive amount of 
downsizing of Washington and the most amount of hope for the American 
people we have had in terms of controlling this Government in 50 years. 
I think it is reason to celebrate, not fight. We appreciate your 
support of that.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Conyers].
  (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I compliment the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Kasich], the Budget chairman, on his disingenuousness.
  All the budgets have agreed that we would balance in 7 years. All the 
budgets have agreed that we would downsize. So what else is new? The 
question is, inside of that, what is going to be cut?
  What is not going to be cut inside of yours, ladies and gentlemen, is 
Star Wars, a $13 billion increase in the Pentagon, and all the taxes 
for the wealthy, and in the meantime the people on Medicare pay higher 
doctor bills, more seniors will be in the system, there will be more 
inflation. You have got a lot of backloading. Then Mr. Dole has already 
said, ``I tried to get Medicare once but it was not politically timely, 
but I think we can do better this time.''
  But what is disturbing is how come I cannot get more votes for the 
Congressional Black Caucus budget because we are Democrats, too, with 
one of the better programs that have been on the floor. I ask the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] to consider that.
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, the reason that I think in our 
Committee on the Budget there was not much talk about the positive 
notes on the President's budget is because the President's budget is 
full of tricks. It takes taxes and says we are going to have tax cuts, 
but then it restores all those tax cuts and ends up actually with a tax 
increase of $16 billion after the year 2002.
  It does not have many spending cuts so nobody is particularly 
offended. Technically it balances because of a gimmick. The President 
says, ``Look, if we're not on track by the year 2000, then I want you 
to take another $67 billion out of discretionary spending.'' That is 
more discretionary cuts than even the Republicans have suggested in 
that length of time. It is going to be impossible. It is pretending 
that it balances when it does not. I bet there are a lot of Democrats 
that are going to be unwilling to vote for the President's budget.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Pelosi].
  Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that our Federal budget should be a statement 
of our national values. President Clinton's budget is. It protects and 
invests in the health, education, and well-being of the American 
people, protects the environment, as well as protecting Medicare and 
Medicaid.
  I have many problems with the Republication budget. However, the most 
extreme and shortsighted part of the GOP budget plan is the severe cuts 
to education and job training. Essentially these vital programs to 
prepare the American people for the challenge of a new global economy 
are cut by 25 percent from this year's funding and then frozen for 6 
years. Many scholarship and student loan programs are eliminated. This 
renewed attack on education places the Republican budget on a collision 
course with the Clinton administration, which has proposed $61 billion 
more in investments for education and job training.
  For health programs, the Republican plan calls for drastic cuts in 
programs like community health centers, family planning and biomedical 
research. Is this a statement of our national values? The plan to cut 
purchasing power for the National Institutes of Health by 16 percent is 
extreme and is lacking in an understanding of the importance of 
investment in biomedical research.
  Over and over again the Republican budget makes cuts where we should 
be making investments. I do not believe it is a statement of our 
national values. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the GOP plan 
and be proud to vote ``aye'' on the Clinton proposal.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 1997 Republican budget 
resolution. Like last year's budget, the plan is out-of-touch with the 
American people and should be rejected by the House.
  In 1993, President Clinton working with Congress began a process of 
deficit reduction that has produced Federal deficits which have gone 
down for 4 years in a row. In fact, the Federal budget deficit has been 
cut in half since the beginning of the Clinton Presidency. We need a 
continuation of the moderate proposals which have been working. We do 
not need another extreme budget plan to foster bitter confrontation 
between the Republican Congress and the administration. The American 
people reject this tactic; they want bipartisan cooperation in solving 
problems.
  The Republican plan proposes to cut Medicare by $168 billion over the 
next 6 years. Even worse, the plan proposes to end 30 years of 
universal coverage for senior citizens and allow the healthy and 
wealthy to opt out of the program causing disruption and placing the 
entire Medicare Program at risk.
  The Republican plan for Medicaid is even more extreme. A cut of $72 
billion over 6 years and allowing the States to cut even more in State 
payments would be severely destructive to the program. The plan also 
would eliminate the current guarantees of health coverage for low-
income children, pregnant women, disabled people, and senior citizens. 
Thankfully, the President has already rejected the drastic approach and 
proposed a reasonable plan to cap individual benefits resulting in 
comparable savings without millions of Americans losing health 
coverage.
  Likewise, the Republican budget includes much of the Republican 
welfare plan which was vetoed by the President because it was too 
extreme and did little to move people from welfare to work. There 
appears to be little to recommend proceeding with the same plan 
encouraging a race to the bottom for State welfare programs.
  With regard to discretionary spending, the Republican plan is once 
again extreme. Funding for defense programs is increased greatly over 
the Pentagon's request. On the other hand, nondefense spending falls 
dramatically; a 25-percent reduction in purchasing power for domestic 
programs.
  For health programs, the Republican plan calls for drastic cuts to 
programs like community health centers, family planning and biomedical 
research. The plan to cut purchasing power for the National Institutes 
of Health [NIH] by 16 percent is extreme and lacking in an 
understanding of the important of investment in biomedical research.
  Again this year, the Republican budget plan proposes to cut important 
worker protection programs, including the Occupational Health and 
Safety Administration [OSHA] by more than 20 percent while terminating 
important research on workplace safety. The budget plan also calls for 
the repeal of the Davis-Bacon Act and the Service Contract Act thus 
threatening other important worker income security protections.
  Nonetheless, the most extreme and short-sighted part of the GOP 
budget plan is the severe cuts to education and job training programs. 
Essentially, these vital programs to prepare the American people for 
the challenges of a new global economy are cut by 25 percent from this 
year's funding and then frozen for 6 years. Important education reforms 
are terminated and funding for bilingual education is eliminated. Many 
scholarship and student loan programs are eliminated. The successful 
direct Student Loan Program is also eliminated. This renewed attack on 
education places the Republican budget on a collision course with the 
Clinton administration which has proposed $61 billion more in 
investments for education and job training.
  Meanwhile, this plan would phase-out funding for the National 
Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities as 
well as

[[Page H5244]]

eliminate Federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. 
Again, these proposals are short-sighted and extreme.
  Again, the Republican plan fails to adequately protect the 
environment. The plan would cut purchasing power for natural resources 
and environmental protection by 26 percent. It also focuses cuts at the 
Environmental Protection Agency based on flawed risk-based regulation 
reforms. The American people want the environment protected. They want 
clean water, clean air, and access to well-kept national parks.
  Mr. Chairman, the Republican budget resolution is deja vu from last 
year's Gingrich budget. This budget sets in motion the same failed 
tactic of confrontation that resulted in the longest and most 
destructive Government shutdowns in our Nation's history. I fear that 
not enough was learned by the Republican leadership from last year's 
failures.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this fundamentally flawed Republican 
budget and insist that a bipartisan budget proposal be adopted to move 
us on an orderly course to complete the important budget work of this 
Congress.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee] is 
recognized for 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank my good friend and ranking member 
from Minnesota, Mr. Sabo, for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to acknowledge that I think the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Kasich] is right. We do need to be discussing the Clinton 
budget, and we do need to be doing it in contrast to the Republican 
budget so the American people can fully understand. I do think that we 
have a sense of responsibility here and we are right, or he is right, 
we did collectively come together to vote on that last bill, 
appropriations bill, to ensure that the Government remained open, which 
is what the Democrats were trying to do all year long.
  But one thing we did stand up and say is that we did not like those 
priorities because it did not ensure the protection of Medicare, it 
relinquished the responsibility for young children to have good health 
by cutting Medicaid so drastically, and then it gave short shrift to 
research and development. And here we are again now, looking at this 
new budget with the same kinds of poison-pen activities.
  I support the Clinton budget because it recognizes that we as 
Americans must be embracing of all of us. It supports research and 
development, it includes a very vital program that I have heard my 
colleagues make jokes about, and that is the Summer Youth Jobs Program 
that puts young people back to work, and then I think we should refresh 
our memories about what happens when we recklessly cut taxes.
  I believe in cutting taxes, and I think we need to be fair to the 
American people. If we cut taxes, we need to ensure the least of those 
who are working and not engaged in receiving welfare and respecting the 
earned income tax credit. But with this new budget, we are seeing the 
Republicans cutting $200 billion of revenue. Where does it go? It does 
not go to the average working American. It goes to those who are 
already well-endowed.
  We realize that under a Republican President when that same 
philosophy and budgeting process was implemented, we for the first time 
in this Nation began to define the deficit in one word, trillions.
  Now we are coming to this Congress and asking for a fair budgeting 
process, one that emphasizes the environment, one that emphasizes 
education, one that emphasizes working America, and one that recognizes 
that this country would not be where it is today if we had not 
supported research and development. We would not be where we are today 
in terms of health care nor would we be where we are today in terms of 
the kinds of technology and jobs that are created. I think research and 
development is the work of the 21st century. That creates the work 
opportunities for the 21st century. It would be shameful to cut so 
drastically, what we have done in this Republican budget.
  So I would simply say that we are talking about a budget that has 
priorities, priorities of balance and a priority that balances what 
this budget should be about and, yes, does not take away $200 billion 
of revenue that American people will need to ensure a better quality of 
life.
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay], the distinguished majority whip.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] is recognized for 
8 minutes.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate this very vigorous 
debate. It has been very encouraging and very stimulating. I hope the 
American people are watching, because there are two very clear 
differences held here on the floor as to where this country ought to be 
going.
  My good friend from Houston, TX, my neighbor who just spoke, was very 
clear about where the Democrats are, where the liberals are. They want 
priorities and they want to maintain the Washington spending that they 
have been so proud of for all these 40 years. They want to continue 
these programs. They do not want to change them, and they are hanging 
on by their fingernails every chance that they can to continue taking 
money from the American families and paying for their priorities. That 
is what this is all about. That is why I rise in opposition to the 
President's budget substitute and I urge my colleagues to support the 
Dole budget.
  Mr. Chairman, today's debate mirrors the greater debate going on in 
this country. On the one hand we have the President's budget which is 
much like the present administration. Rhetorically the President's 
budget looks great. It seemingly balances the budget. It seemingly 
gives tax relief to American families. It seemingly urges welfare 
reform. But if we look at the numbing details, a very different picture 
emerges. It is the picture of a President who promised a middle-class 
tax cut and then socked a gas tax on middle-class families and a Social 
Security tax on America's seniors.
  It is the picture of a President who promised to end welfare as we 
know it and then vetoed commonsense welfare reform twice.
  It is the picture of a President who promised to balance the budget 
in 5 years, then in 10 years, and then every year in between.
  And it is the picture of a President that says one thing and does 
another.
  Mr. Chairman, it is easy to see why this President is so strongly 
supported by Hollywood. His budget is kind of like a Hollywood set. It 
is a sturdy-looking facade backed by nothing more than a vivid 
imagination.
  The contrast with the Dole budget is very striking. The Dole budget 
is the real thing, much like the man himself. It cuts taxes for 
American families, not as much as I would like, but certainly more than 
the President even pretends to cut; it saves Medicare for the next 
generation, and it balances in 6 years using real numbers, real 
assumptions, and real cuts in wasteful Washington spending.
  So, Mr. Chairman, the American people yearn for the real thing. They 
do not want any more empty promises. They do not want any more phony 
numbers, and they do not want bigger government cloaked in Clinton 
rhetoric. They want a smaller, more effective Federal Government. They 
want lower taxes. They want real welfare reform. And they want a 
balanced budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject the Clinton budget and 
vote for the real thing, the Dole budget.
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, a few short weeks ago the Congressional 
Budget Office [CBO] estimated the budget deficit for the current fiscal 
year, 1996, to be $145 billion. At that time CBO also estimated that 
the deficit, without some intervening action by the Congress, will top 
$200 billion in fiscal 1999, reach $311 billion in 2003, and explode to 
$403 billion in 2006.
  And the national debt continues its climb too and today is hovering 
near $5.1 trillion. Without significant deficit reduction, the national 
debt of the United States will exceed $7 trillion in 2006, a level of 
future debt the nation clearly cannot afford.
  As a member of the coalition, I am proud of the work our group has 
done this year in developing and presenting an alternative resolution 
that balances the Federal budget, with significant deficit reduction 
and program reforms that stem the hemorrhaging national

[[Page H5245]]

debt. The coalition budget alternative is comprehensive and fair, and I 
am pleased to vote to support it today. In doing so, I applaud the work 
of Bill Orton and Charlie Stenholm and the other coalition members for 
their hard work.
  Let me also congratulate Chairman John Kasich, Ranking Member Martin 
Sabo, and all the members of the Budget Committee for the work they 
have done this year. Chairman Kasich and Mr. Sabo are both dedicated to 
balancing the budget, and one of my regrets is that we are not here 
today with a budget resolution that both of our Budget Committee 
leaders can support.
  Mr. Chairman, I am also supporting President Clinton's budget 
proposal presented by the gentleman from Minnesota, [Mr. Sabo], as well 
as the Republican resolution presented by Chairman Kasich because both 
of these budget resolutions are comprehensive and will set in motion 
the needed policy and spending changes necessary to reach a balanced 
budget.
  Balancing the budget should be the top priority of the Congress; 
there can be no other. As we in the Congress proceed to implement the 
fiscal year 1997 Budget Resolution, let us keep the goal of reducing 
spending and balancing the budget central to all of our efforts.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Sabo 
substitute, the President's balanced budget. This plan brings the 
budget into balance by the year 2002 by providing $523.4 billion in 
total deficit reduction over the next 6 years, including cuts of $265 
billion from entitlement spending alone.
  The President's plan--like the Republican budget--brings us to 
balance by 2002, but unlike the GOP plan, it does not require that our 
seniors, education, and environmental protection bear a 
disproportionate share of the burden for deficit reduction.
  For instance, while the President's plan would maintain direct 
student loans, as used by 2.5 million students in 1,400 schools 
nationwide, the Republican plan would eliminate them altogether. The 
Republican plan also eliminates the AmeriCorps national and community 
service program. Overall, the GOP plan would provide $60.6 billion less 
for elementary, secondary, and higher education and training than the 
President's plan. Likewise, the President's plan demonstrates a 
commitment to clean air and water while the Republican plan provides 
$13 billion less on protection and cleanup of our environment. And, the 
Republican Medicare reductions mirror those proposed in last year's 
budget while the President proposes real reform that protects seniors 
and the solvency of the Medicare trust fund.
  However, I want to express my serious reservations over the fact that 
this budget resolution, as well as the Republican plan, assumes a 
reduction in the Consumer Price Index [CPI], the standard used to 
calculate the cost-of-living adjustments for various programs including 
Social Security.
  The alternatives before us today assume that the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics [BLS] will reduce the CPI by 0.2 percent in 1998 and 0.4 
percent in 2000. There is no requirement that Congress review or 
approve this change. Although last year I successfully amended 
legislation to require that Congress must review and vote on such 
changes, my amendment to the Labor appropriations bill was dropped in 
the final product.
  Additionally, I want to express my reservations about the tax cuts 
contained in the President's budget. With our Nation facing a debt of 
over $5 trillion, I do not support tax cuts at this time. Any savings 
should be applied to deficit reduction.
  Despite these concerns, which will be addressed in more detail in 
later bills, the President's budget plan is sound deficit reduction. It 
brings our budget into balance while maintaining our commitment to 
education, environmental protection, seniors, and our communities.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Sabo 
amendment, which forwards President Clinton's budget proposal. The 
President's budget is balanced in 6 years as scored by the CBO. It 
continues the fundamental reforms begun by this administration while 
not doing long-term damage to programs as does the budget presented by 
the Republicans. It funds education in a way that continues progress 
toward our children's futures. It funds health care for the poor, the 
young, the disabled and the old. It funds programs to train the 
underemployed so that we can reduce dependence on welfare programs for 
the able bodies. It's family- and taxpayer-friendly.
  This body has rejected two alternative budgets today. The American 
public rejects the Republican budget, because it is almost the same as 
the one we saw last year. I urge my colleagues to act with reason and 
not drag the country through the same mess we went through last year 
when there was no rhyme nor reason to the fiscal crisis that the 
Republican majority brought to us by trying to pressure the American 
people to accept less than they want and deserve.
  The President's budget saves money for local and state government and 
still reserves funds for valuable programs to support the children, 
families and vulnerable among our population. It reforms our welfare 
programs in a fashion that is not tough on kids.
  I appeal to my colleagues, especially those on the other side of the 
aisle. Don't callously harm the well-being of our seniors, our 
children, our working poor, and our homeless. Vote for the Sabo 
amendment so that we can move forward to develop a reasonable Federal 
budget that will work for all the American people.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of President 
Clinton's proposal to balance the budget. While it is not the budget 
that I would write, this budget does eliminate the deficit by the year 
2002 while protecting the elderly from higher Medicare premiums, 
preserving Medicaid for the poor and those in nursing homes, protecting 
the environment, and providing adequate funds for education.
  If I were drafting this budget, I would have cut an additional $25 
billion from defense and added that back to the Medicare trust fund for 
hospital and physician reimbursements. In my view, these Medicare cuts 
are too large for our hospitals, particularly teaching hospitals and 
those which treat many poor patients.
  We can lessen the impact of the Medicare reductions if we treat the 
defense budget under the same standard as every other part of the 
budget. Instead defense cuts are left off the table. That is not right.
  The reality is that every Member of Congress could come up with their 
own plan to balance the budget. There are other changes that I would 
make as well, but the Clinton budget is the closest to my values. That 
is why it has my support. It is not perfect, but it gets the job done.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute offered by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 117, 
noes 304, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 178]

                               AYES--117

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Coyne
     de la Garza
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Durbin
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennelly
     Kleczka
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Murtha
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Richardson
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Studds
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Vento
     Volkmer
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Yates

                               NOES--304

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler

[[Page H5246]]


     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greene (UT)
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Luther
     Martini
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Meehan
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Minge
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Rush
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Stump
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Towns
     Traficant
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Coleman
     Ehlers
     Gibbons
     Hayes
     Jacobs
     Lewis (CA)
     Manzullo
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Paxon
     Quillen
     Talent

                              {time}  1549

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Gibbons for, with Mr. Paxon against.
       Mr. Coleman for, with Mr. Miller against.

  Messrs. HYDE, HORN, POSHARD, NETHERCUTT, and SERRANO changed their 
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. DICKS changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, before we begin, I ask that my friend, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] be permitted to speak out of 
order on a matter unrelated to the budget that should come to the 
attention of the House.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Murtha was allowed to speak out of order.)


 moment of silent prayer for chief of naval operations, adm. jeremy m. 
                                 boorda

  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the House to rise and join me 
in a moment of silent prayer for Admiral Boorda, who apparently either 
shot himself accidentally or intentionally.
  Admiral Boorda was one of the finest naval officers that I have ever 
known; a person who came up through the ranks, and all of us had so 
much admiration for, and who has done so much for this great country 
over the years. The Navy and the country is a better place because of 
his fine service, and I would ask that we would bow our heads for a 
moment of prayer.
  Amen.
  The CHAIRMAN. A final period of general debate is now in order. The 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hobson] and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
Sabo] each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hobson].
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning].
  (Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of 
budget resolution House Concurrent Resolution 178.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the budget resolution, House 
Concurrent Resolution 178. It keeps us going in the right direction to 
make sure that we do indeed balance the budget by the year 2002.
  It is truly gratifying to see the change that has taken place in 
Washington since the Republican majority was elected. The entire debate 
has shifted from one of simply not letting the deficit get any bigger 
to really balancing the budget. That is a fundamental change in the 
culture of the Federal Government.
  It is good to take stock of these things from time to time because 
people forget very quickly how things used to be. They forget that 
under the previous leadership of the other party, spending spiraled out 
of control and it was common to refer to spending as being 
``uncontrollable.''
  We have proved that it was a lack of will to control spending that 
lay at the heart of our deficits. And, it was the Orwellian use of 
language in which spending increases were called cuts that aided the 
ballooning of Federal spending. The deficits ballooned because Congress 
could not control itself, not because spending could not be controlled.
  Under Republican leadership, domestic discretionary spending actually 
decreased for the first time in more than two decades. While we did not 
reduce it as much as many of us would have liked, it was a major 
accomplishment to completely change the direction of government from 
growing ever larger to actually shrinking it.
  Those of us who promised to work for a smaller, less intrusive 
government can be very proud of what we have been able to do in such a 
short time.
  The budget before us today keeps us on track to getting our financial 
house in order. Again, it does not go nearly as far as I would like; 
but, it maintains our momentum toward the goal of a balanced budget and 
the economic rewards that go with it.
  The budget should be balanced as a matter of principle, but, just as 
important as the principle is the economic benefits that go with it. A 
2-percent drop in interest rates, which nearly all economists agree 
would result from a balanced budget, means lower costs for buying a 
home, a car, or a college education.
  Because of that kind of economic change, individuals will be able to 
do the things that they need to do to improve their lives and take care 
of their families.
  Our budget will make sure that the Government programs that we depend 
upon will be there when we need them. Medicare is going bankrupt even 
faster than we originally thought and we absolutely cannot allow that 
to happen.
  Our budget will allow Medicare to continue to grow; in fact, it will 
be one of the fastest growing programs in the budget. But the rate of 
growth will be slowed through sound policy changes that ultimately give 
senior citizens greater choice and control over their own health care.
  I suppose that budgets reflect the priorities that we place on things 
and they say a great deal about who you trust. Our budget says that we 
have heard the call of the American people for a smaller and more 
responsive Government.
  This budget reflects our belief that individuals can and will make 
the best choices about how to run their own lives. It is a far cry from 
the Washington-knows-best, one-size-fits-all, bigger-is-better, 
``spending can't be controlled'' budgets of years past.
  I encourage my colleagues to support the budget resolution and keep 
America on the path to a balanced budget, more freedom and individual 
responsibility.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Watts].
  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, recently I was in Dallas, TX, 
and I bought a little plaque for my office that talked about 
priorities. I know it is very difficult to see this plague because I 
tried to photocopy it and it is pretty difficult to see it, but here is 
the message. It says: ``One hundred years from now it will not matter 
what my bank account was, the sort of house I lived in, or the kind of 
car I drove, but the world may be different because I was important in 
the life of a child.''
  I bought that plaque because it reminds me of why I am here in 
Congress. We all need to be reminded to keep our priorities in line. 
Today's vote is about priorities. It is about the priority of our 
Nation to live the way we expect every citizen to live, within his or 
her means. This debate today is about truth, it is about honesty, it is 
about our children and our grandchildren. It is about getting rid of a 
$200-plus billion deficit and a $5 trillion national debt.
  Over the last 30 years this city has had one heck of a party, and we 
continue sending the bill to our kids and

[[Page H5247]]

our grandkids. Mr. Chairman, every night I pray that the Lord will 
bless and keep my children, and I have a picture of my family here, and 
every time we have this budget debate I am reminded of my 
responsibility in that prayer. I have five personal reasons why I want 
to balance the budget. They are Kesha, Jerrell, Jennifer, Julie and 
Trey Watts.

  I urge Members all to look around next Sunday when they go to their 
church or they go to their synagogue or parish, and I challenge them to 
go to the nursery and take a look at those nursery kids, those 2 years 
old and 3 years old, and understand this as they look at them: Each of 
them, each one of them, they are responsible for $18,000 of the 
national debt, each of them, and they never held a job.
  I urge Members to do that, and if they vote no today they have to 
tell every one of those precious children they just saddled them with 
an ever-deepening debt. Their life will never be as good as ours, and 
in essence we have lost our priorities. I urge a ``yes'' vote for this 
budget. I urge a vote for the right priorities I urge my colleagues to 
remember their own reasons, their own children, and continue our 
country on the path to a balanced budget.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me just make a couple of comments and then I will yield to 
others. I will try to be shorter than I was planning on.
  I hear all this discussion about children. I happen to have a new 
grandchild. I am a grandfather for the first time, a little over a 
month ago.

                              {time}  1600

  It is a new experience. It is nice. But I look outside today, and I 
hope for the sake of my granddaughter the future is not as dreary and 
bleak as the weather outside today. I tell my friends on the Republican 
side that I see their budget, and I worry about it. I hope she grows up 
in a world where she knows she has to pay her bills, but I also hope 
she grows up with a sense of obligation and a sense of community that 
is larger than simply herself or her community or her State, but it 
also includes a view of the country as a whole in the world.
  We have important obligations as we move forward to balance the 
budget, which we should do. But we made important commitments to our 
seniors in Medicare, and as we reform it and change it, as we must, we 
must make certain that we do it in a rational way that is sustainable 
and continues quality health care for all in this country. I fear the 
Republican proposal, as in so many cases, goes too far. In Medicaid 
where we deal with health care for the most vulnerable in our society, 
the numbers are not that far off, but the policy is. My colleagues let 
the States put billions of dollars out of the program.
  I could go on in program after program where that is the case. We are 
going to pass it today. I hope that we only recognize that somehow it 
is a bargaining position for your side of the aisle. Ultimately I still 
hope that we can come to some agreement in this session between the 
Congress and the President and find a solution that is pragmatic rather 
than ideologically driven so that we can move this whole country 
forward. Your proposal today is not that solution.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Gibbons], who served as a very distinguished ranking member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means and, unfortunately, is leaving us at the 
end of this session of Congress.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, this issue today is not about balancing 
the budget. In fact, this issue that we are talking about really is a 
wish list. It is not a law. It never will become law. It is just a wish 
list that we put together to say that we are fulfilling our 
responsibilities. But there is something wrong with this wish list. 
Seventy-five percent of all the savings in this wish list come out of 
children, aged, sick people's benefits. Seventy-five percent of all the 
money that is saved in this wish list comes out of Medicare and 
Medicaid.
  In addition to that in this wish list, a horrible damage is done to 
the programs that have worked successfully. All of the seniors will be 
herded into managed care where they do not choose to go, have not 
chosen to go, and do not need to go. Who will profit by all that? The 
insurance companies, the medical doctors, and all the people who are 
making such a killing out of managed care.
  Second, the States will not be required to continue their efforts for 
their children and their old people under Medicaid. Another horrible 
cut from the welfare of those who are dependent upon us who are healthy 
and well off. Then, Mr. Chairman, there is a tax cut in here, just like 
there was last year, and it is here for the wealthy friends of our 
Republicans.
  America does not need a tax cut. The United States of America has 
today the lowest tax burden of any of the 25 industrialized nations on 
earth. We do need to balance our budget, but we do not need to balance 
our budget at the expense of the dependent people in this society. And 
we do not need to balance it for the benefit of those who can more than 
pay their own way.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Delaware [Mr. Castle].
  (Mr. CASTLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this resolution.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 178, 
the House budget resolution, but want to comment on the President's 
budget and the other budget alternatives.
  While I am pleased that the President has finally agreed on the need 
to balance the budget, his plan falls short on a number of the critical 
reforms that are necessary to achieve this goal. It promises a lot, but 
delivers little.
  In 1994, I had the opportunity to serve on the President's bipartisan 
Commission on Entitlement Reform, the Kerry-Danforth Commission. For a 
year the Commission heard testimony from a parade of experts on the 
need to reform Medicare and Medicaid and other entitlements or they 
would ultimately either become insolvent or eat up virtually all our 
tax dollars.
  What troubles me most about the President's budget is that it does 
not face up to the pressing need to address the entitlement issue. 
Instead, the administration has played politics by portraying the sound 
reforms to Medicare contained in the Republican budget as a threat to 
seniors.
  Reforms to Medicare, Medicaid and welfare are not needed simply to 
balance the budget, they are needed to protect these programs for those 
they serve.
  I am one Member who believes that we can still achieve some major 
progress toward balancing the budget this year.
  While the President's budget falls short in key areas, I believe that 
the coalition budget presented earlier shows that Republicans and 
Democrats do not have far to go to achieve fair compromises on the most 
important budget issues.
  The coalition budget plan and the Republican budget are the two most 
credible plans for achieving a balanced budget in 6 years. The 
President's plan does not meet the critical tests necessary to achieve 
a balanced budget. The President's plan is based on overly optimistic 
economic assumptions and avoids most of the tough choices necessary to 
balance the budget.
  Mr. Chairman, today we should pass this budget resolution and then 
get down to the task to producing welfare, Medicaid, and Medicare 
reforms that will save these programs and save tax dollars.
  These are the areas we must concentrate on in the next few months to 
really make a difference in the lives of our constituents.
  Members of the Blue Dog Coalition and a number of Republicans have 
already demonstrated that we can work together to reform programs which 
will help people and balance the budget.
  Congressman John Tanner and I have introduced a bipartisan welfare 
reform bill which would save $50 billion over 7 years and contains all 
the key reforms necessary to move people from welfare to work.
  This compromise is based on H.R. 4 conference report and the 
bipartisan Governor's proposal.
  It contains all the essential elements of the conference report--work 
requirements; family cap; time limits; limits on benefits to teenage 
mothers; paternity establishment; illegitimacy reduction; and child 
support enforcement.
  It builds on the Governor's plan by providing additional funding for 
child care and the contingency fund to protect States from economic 
downturns, but requires more State accountability.
  This is the type of bipartisan effort that will lead to a balanced 
budget. We need to pursue similar agreements to reform Medicaid, 
Medicare and hopefully provide tax relief to the American people.
  I support passage of the budget resolution and then immediate action 
to pass legislation

[[Page H5248]]

to reform the key programs that will balance the budget.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly].
  Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Chairman, I have to rise in opposition today to 
the final budget resolution before us. Setting budget priorities is one 
of the most challenging things that we have as Members of Congress to 
come before us. In agreeing to a budget resolution, we are making a 
series of choices, choices about the goals that Government makes, 
choices about the services that citizens receive, choice about 
commitments that are kept.
  The good thing about today is we come to this floor together, and we 
are all looking at balanced budgets. But the whole point is, how do we 
get there? There is no single right way to get there. There is no one 
answer. What we are talking about today are choices. I would argue that 
some of the choices in the majority's budget resolution are very much 
the wrong ones.
  Quickly, let me just mention the choices on Medicare. We all fully 
agree that we have to keep the Medicare program solvent. We have done 
it before. We will do it again. But there are several policies in the 
majority's budget resolution today that would, it really would make it 
more difficult for seniors and at the same time does not improve the 
Medicare solvency situation. Two examples: Medical savings accounts. We 
could debate medical savings accounts for younger, healthier people and 
probably have a very healthy good debate. We have one universal health 
system in this country. Those over 65 get Medicare. If you give them a 
medical savings account to choose, who is going to choose it? Of course 
if you are younger, if you were healthier, you will choose it. And in 
some choosing, we lose $4.6 billion in that whole choice.
  More damaging still is those that are frailer and sicker stay in our 
traditional Medicare which has worked, is there for over 65 and as a 
result of the healthier, stronger ones going out of it, the premiums go 
up for the sicker. It is what we call adverse selection. In plain 
English, what it means is the premiums are going to go up.
  Also, something that some of us on both sides of the aisles have 
worked for for years, and that is to see that when you have Medicare 
and you go to the doctor, you have a protection against increased costs 
over and above Medicare. For years we fought that. I can remember going 
to meetings when I was on the city council; assignment: Let us have 
assignment for doctors who work their way through it so it was fair for 
those on Medicare and fair for the doctors.
  What is happening in the new budget resolution that we are about to 
vote on? Balanced billing, they call it. It is not balanced, let me 
tell you. It means the doctor can add on and you will not have a 
choice.
  My final thing, let me say why in heaven's name when we are all 
talking about welfare reform that we are going and attacking the earned 
income tax credit? Make work pay. Do not take money out of people's 
pockets.
  These things make it impossible to vote for this majority budget. We 
really should not do what we are doing today.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hobson].
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the House resolution, 
as a grandfather, and urge passage.
  My third grandchild--and second grandson--will be born soon, and as I 
think of welcoming this new Hobson into the world, I can't help but 
wonder what kind of future he will face. How much will prices rise 
during his lifetime? Will the country still be a place of opportunity? 
Will there still be a thriving economy to support his generation? When 
I think about the answers to these questions, it becomes increasingly 
clear to me that the best thing I can do for my new grandson is to vote 
``yes'' for this budget package.
  When they look back on this Congress, our own children and 
grandchildren will judge us harshly if we pass up this chance, and we 
continue to rob them because we do not have the backbone to control our 
spending in this Chamber. Every time we deficit spend we are refusing 
to take responsibility for our actions.
  Many constituents I've talked to have had concerns about specific 
programs they benefit from, but without fail, they also remind me to 
follow through with the promise to balance the budget. People are 
willing to accept the changes necessary to preserve our country's 
fiscal security, but they want us to make sure that what we do is fair, 
and that we follow through on our commitment to balance the budget.
  We're a year into the balanced budget mission, and the sky has not 
fallen like some said it would. In fact, we all know that the sky will 
continue to brighten the closer we get to 2002 and to balance.
  I know there are many here today whose parochial interests lead them 
to declare this plan unfair. To those people I ask them to consider 
this: is it fair to take the money and future and opportunity from 
generations of Americans who aren't even born yet? That's what we do 
when we deficit spend and run up the debt. Someone pays and it isn't 
those of us in this room, it is our children and grandchildren who 
trust us to look out for them.
  Protect our children's and grandchildren's future and shift power, 
money and influence out of Washington and back to Americans: pass the 
1997 budget resolution.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to my good friend, the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel].
  (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, as I ask for opposition to the majority 
budget proposal, it is with the understanding and the true belief that 
all of us in this House are really looking for a better America, a more 
prosperous America, an improvement in the quality of life for all of 
our citizens.
  Not too long ago when President Clinton spoke to both Houses, there 
were a lot of people that reported that he sounded so Republican, that 
he had stolen every idea that only the genius of the party labeled The 
Grand Old Party could have. I rather thought that that was a message in 
saying that we all have the same objectives.
  We truly would like to have a smaller Government, that we would want 
to reduce taxes on our constituents and even our own, for that matter; 
that we are concerned with being able to say that during the time that 
we were in the Congress, we indeed improved the quality of life. That 
happened whether we were Republican or whether we were Democrats.
  I think that next to feeling good about being American, the next good 
feeling that we have in our country is the dignity and the pride of 
having a job. You have had to know unemployment, you have had to know 
the pain of looking at your family in the face, looking at your kids 
and somehow explaining why that American dream is not yours to share 
in. You have to understand, even if you had a good job and for some 
reason you lost a job, they downsized, they merged, how do you explain 
to your kids and to your family that America is doing much better, 
trade is expanding, but somehow you got caught in the cracks?
  I suggest when Members look at this budget, instead of the rhetoric 
about wiping out the Department of Education and wiping out the 
Department of Commerce, we should say we are going to increase 
education. If they are not doing the job, we have got to restructure 
it. Instead of talking about wiping out the Department of Commerce, we 
are going to say we are going to expand world trade, we have exhausted 
European and domestic markets.
  While we are talking about this and while we are willing to make 
available moneys for research and development, when do we start talking 
about training people, giving them access to education, not cutting 
student loans, not cutting back on education and job training? Saying 
everybody in this country is going to be able to work, is going to be 
able to stand up and say that they are going to take care of their 
family and they will never allow welfare to compete for the hearts of 
their children and the mother of those children because they have the 
dignity to work.

  That is what the earned income tax credit was all about. It was 
saying if you are working every day, black or white, Jew or gentile, 
and at the end of the year you end up below the poverty level, that we 
are not going to advocate that you make the salary of a Member of 
Congress, but we will give you something to bring you to the dignity of 
working and being above poverty.

[[Page H5249]]

  So we cut out education, we cut out the job training, and we have the 
audacity to cut out giving a hand to people who refuse to be on welfare 
but want to work each and every day with just a little help. When we 
start thinking about what we are not doing to put people to work in 
terms of education and job training, when last have we ever heard on 
this floor that we are spending too much money on our jails? When have 
we ever heard that mandatory sentences mean more taxpayers' money 
spent?
  Why in the city of New York, we have a detention center that costs 
$60,000 a year to keep a bum kid in, and that is before he is 
convicted. Yet the fight is between the mayor and the Governor and this 
Congress as to whether $6,000 a year is enough. So you kick them out of 
school, you put them in the streets and we end up with drugs, with 
violence, and with jail.
  A greater America is a working America, a stronger educated America, 
and we just made the wrong cuts for this great Republic.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
minority leader, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt].
  (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, this Republican budget reminds me of a 
movie I saw a few years ago called ``Groundhog Day.'' In the movie, 
Bill Murray, who is the star, keeps reliving the same day over and over 
again. Everything happens to him the same way.
  This budget, which has been advertised as a real change, when you 
examine it, when you open the package that has been repackaged, is 
really the same thing. It is said to be a moderate budget. It is not a 
moderate budget. It is warmed over tax cuts for the wealthy, rehashed 
cuts in Medicare, in Medicaid, reconstituted cuts in education and the 
environment.
  For 17 months, the President, the Democrats have been waiting for the 
Republicans to come to the sensible center so that we could get a 
budget done. The Republicans have been offered a balanced budget plan 
made up entirely of cuts that the Republicans support, but it is never 
good enough. We cannot seem to get the compromise, the consensus that 
we need to get this done.

                              {time}  1615

  This budget still raises taxes.
  Now listen to this. I said it in the last budget debate:
  This budget raises taxes on working people who are at the bottom, 
trying to get in the middle class, while it cuts dramatically taxes on 
capital gains, most of which goes to the wealthiest Americans. How can 
anyone argue that this is fair, that this is sensible, that this is 
pragmatic, that this is what we ought to be doing in this country?
  It still cuts Medicare and Medicaid way too much. That would not have 
to be done if we simply gave up the tax break for the wealthiest 
Americans, if we just focus the tax break on middle-income people and 
people trying to get in the middle class. We would not need as deep a 
cut in Medicare and Medicaid and in education.
  And then if we look at the list that comes out of discretionary 
spending, it is too long for me to read this afternoon. Job training in 
vocational education, cut by more than $1 billion; national direct 
student loans, eliminated entirely; libraries across the country cut by 
one-fifth; 24 education programs eliminated entirely; Institutes for 
Occupational Safety and Health, gone; rural housing eliminated; rural 
health, gone; agricultural extension and research, gone.
  The list goes on. I could read it all afternoon.
  These are efforts that everybody could agree are good for the future 
of this country that only, only the government will perform if this 
country is to move forward.
  Now let me end with this:
  This budget for the second year in a row is not going to happen. The 
President will veto the implementation of this budget, and what I 
cannot understand, my friends in the Republican Party, we now have 2 
years of no progress.
  I know my colleagues did not like the President's budget in 1993, but 
it cut the deficit in half, and most importantly, it got done.
  This country is not a parliamentary system. Our colleagues cannot do 
it their way alone. They have to come to the middle, and we have to 
find a compromise to move this country forward. if our colleagues 
continue being obstinate and resolute in wanting to do it their way or 
no way, we get nothing done for the American people.
  Let us vote this budget down, let us get a budget back on this floor 
that is somewhere out here in the middle that everybody in this body 
can support, and let us get this deficit down and balance this budget 
as we should have done a long time ago.
  This budget will not live. Let us find a budget that will.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just say that we have had enormous progress. The 
simple fact of the matter is that in the area of Washington spending 
the spending that we are responsible for year to year, that if we do 
not even come to work, of course, entitlements keep going up, but on 
that spending that the President was forced to deal with, we had the 
most massive amount of change in 50 years. We saved a net amount of 
dollars of 30 billion, the most amount of savings, the most amount of 
shrinking of Government in 50 years.
  As George Will told me, ``Historians were wrong, John. Historians 
were wrong. They said government never shrunk. You proved that it can, 
in fact, shrink.'' And the savings of that $23 billion came, it came 
because we had principle. We did not cave, We stood up for what we 
believed in. We are standing up for this country. We are standing up 
for the power of the individual and a smaller Federal Government into 
the next century.
  But let me tell you about the three reasons why we do this budget. 
One is the children. Everyone in this Chamber cares about the kids. 
That is why we all talk about them. We are about preserving America's 
greatest legacy. It is simple: ``Your children will be better off than 
you were.'' It is the legacy that we got from our parents.
  I look across this Chamber, and I look at a great man, the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Rangel], a hero of the Korean war. Never in his 
wildest dreams did he ever think that he would get to be a very senior 
and respected spokesman on the Committee of Ways and Means. And I look 
across the aisle here. We got a professional football player who 
struggled his way up and made the big time and then came to Congress 
because he had a vision.
  I mean, all we are saying is that every child, and everybody agrees 
with this, every child deserves a legacy and an opportunity for them to 
be able to live their dreams, and we cannot give them that if we keep 
spending money we do not have. We know it. We do not want to send them 
to work where the message is that they are going to work longer and 
harder for somebody else to pay somebody else's bills. We do not want 
to strangle them with a big government that can choke them off in 
overregulation and things that do not make common sense.
  So, No. 1, our principles are driven by children, the next 
generation. As my colleagues know, it is right out of the Bible. One of 
the most important principles is the other person is more important 
than we are. Well, we think that this country is more important than 
us; and, second, we believe our children and the next generation, 
frankly, are more important than we are. So we do it for the children.
  But as Eunice Kennedy said to me one night, she said, ``You know I 
understand your love for the children. That's about what you're going 
to do tomorrow. What about today?'' She said, ``You have to explain 
what you're going to do today,'' and she made a fair point, and I want 
to say to my friend from New York, when we talk about jobs, when we 
talk about job insecurity, when we talk about wages, let us just look 
at the facts. We got a candidate in our party, we had an independent 
candidate, and we are going to hear about job insecurity and wage 
stagnation until we solve it, and we should, because mothers and 
fathers are working longer and harder and they are getting stuck. Too 
many families are stuck. They are not getting ahead.
  I understand it. I come from a family where we had to work like crazy 
to get ahead. I understand the problem.

[[Page H5250]]

  Where does it come from? The simple fact of the matter is, if a 
country does not save, it cannot invest. If a family does not save, it 
cannot invest, it cannot invest in its children, it cannot invest in 
its home, it cannot invest in transportation. If a nation does not 
save, it cannot invest, and America has the lowest savings rate of any 
modern industrialized nation on the face of the Earth. We punish people 
for saving, and not only do we punish them for saving, but we make it 
difficult for them to have anything left after they get their wages 
because government at all levels has taken too much from them. So, 
first of all, they do not have anything left, and the few crumbs they 
have left, they cannot save because if they save, they get penalized on 
their income tax statement because they saved. It is crazy.
  This Nation needs to save. We need to provide reasons to save for our 
future because, if we save, we can invest, and if we can invest, we can 
improve productivity. That is an economic term. But what does it really 
mean? It means putting tools in the hands of American workers that 
allow them to compete and win with workers all around the world.
  Intel in New Mexico, I believe, is the highest-paying job one can get 
in New Mexico. I say to my colleagues you do not work for Intel; you 
know why? Because the whole world wants the magic of the computer. And 
so their workers are paid a premium wage, their jobs are secure.
  America needs to pursue a policy that saves and invests and takes 
risks and rewards risks and helps our people win. That is what our 
budget does by rewarding risk-taking and savings and investment and 
opportunity.
  And third, the point maybe on which we most disagree because I am not 
so sure we disagree on the first two, how do we make this 
transformation? My colleagues, what we are about over here is we are 
about the power of the individual and we are not about the power of 
Washington bureaucracy. We are for systematically taking power, money 
and influence from this city and sending it home, and that does not 
mean that what we have done for the last 30 years or 40 years had not 
been good. It has been good. Thank God we created Medicare, thank God 
the Federal Government got involved in many of the issues they got 
involved with. But, frankly, we are not getting the results from here 
any more. We will not solve the problems on crime on the streets of Los 
Angeles from Washington. The only people that can solve the problems of 
crime in Los Angeles are people who live in the neighborhoods of Los 
Angeles. They need to be empowered.
  Children are not going to learn because we are calling a bureaucrat 
in Washington to figure out whether our kids are getting educated. 
Mothers and fathers across this great country of ours, they are the 
ones that can make the assessment, they are the ones that have to work 
with the teachers in the school houses to determine whether their 
children are winning or not. We do not believe that the answer lies 
here.
  Job training; oh, come on, 120 Federal job training programs. I do 
not advise anybody to leave their job and think that Washington is 
going to retrain them. How are we going to do it? We are going to put 
an incentive in the hands of a business. The business is going to call 
somebody who does not have a skill. The business is going to train that 
person for an incentive, and then they are going to hire them for a 
real, permanent, high-paying job. That is how we do job training.
  So I say our vision is get the pendulum, move the pendulum back, get 
the power and the money and the influence out of this city, back home 
where we can have local solutions for local problems at less cost 
because I will just suggest to my colleagues, in closing, the 21st 
century is about the century of the power of the individual, not the 
century of the power of government. It is about giving individuals the 
tools that we have created in this economy that can make us the most 
powerful people in the history of the world, and we mean to take the 
first big step toward guaranteeing a bright and beautiful and 
opportunistic, an opportunity society, for everyone into the 21st 
century.
  Pass the resolution. It is a giant first step toward saving our 
children, toward providing for better jobs and empowering individuals 
as we fly into the 21st century.
  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, while I am in support of the budget 
resolution before the House today I do want to alert Members to a 
serious issue. I believe that this is no time to back away from 
aggressive trade policies. We need all the tools available in a post-
NAFTA and post-GATT world to ensure that our farmers can fairly compete 
in world agriculture trade. There are programs that help American 
farmers and one of them is Public Law 480. This program helps countries 
become our trading partners of the future.
  We need to strengthen Public Law 480 and integrate it into an 
aggressive trade strategy to make us more competitive. The 1996 farm 
bill made significant changes to Public Law 480 to improve the program.
  For example, South Korea was a former Public Law 480 recipient. Now 
South Korea is the fifth largest market for United States agriculture 
goods. We sell over $2 billion in agriculture products to South Korea 
each year.
  Countries now receiving title I assistance include Lithuania and 
Ukraine, countries that will be our future cash trading partners.
  I do not believe we should turn our backs on the farmers and ranchers 
of America. We need all the trading partners we can get--or the 
European union will take over all agriculture exports in the world.
  Title I, the concessional agriculture sales program and title III, 
food grants to promote economic development, of Public Law 480 are 
important programs and it is my intention during the appropriations 
process to work to make sure funding is provided for the Food for Peace 
Program.
  The Subcommittee on Department Operations, Nutrition, and Foreign 
Agriculture, of which I am the chairman, worked very hard to improve 
this program and will continue its work to ensure adequate funding for 
the Food for Peace Program.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, the budget resolution for the fiscal year 
1997, brought to the floor under the leadership of Chairman Kasich and 
the Budget Committee, continues our payments on a balanced budget by 
the year 2002. It is an important step forward for the Congress and for 
the American people, and one I wholeheartedly support.
  In the report to accompany the budget resolution, the Budget 
Committee makes a number of specific suggestions on cuts in both 
discretionary and mandatory spending. Their suggestions look both at 
the fundamental purpose of American Government, and to areas where--
when there is a legitimate governmental function--we can eliminate 
waste, bureaucracy, and duplication.
  While I generally agree with most of the suggestions made by the 
Budget Committee in its report, as the chairman of the subcommittee 
with jurisdiction over the Federal Trade Commission, I was disappointed 
to see that they targeted this agency for elimination. My subcommittee 
will be taking up reauthorizing legislation for the agency within the 
next month or two, and while the subcommittee will continue to review 
the FTC's operations with a critical eye, I believe that this is an 
important agency and one which should continue to be funded.
  The FTC has often demonstrated its commitment and competence in 
protecting American consumers. Both in its recent rejection of the 
Rite-Aid/Revco merger and the ``Senior Sentinel'' sweep designed to 
root out telemarketing fraud, the agency has acquitted itself admirably 
in meeting its mission. While we realize that this agency had a number 
of problems in the 1970's and early 1980's, it has put many of those 
problems behind it and manages to accomplish its goals with a minimum 
of public resources.

  Further, the FTC provides a good return on the public's investment. 
The agency is nearly 70 percent funded by fees generated from corporate 
mergers. It regularly reviews old rules and discards those that are 
obsolete or no longer necessary to prevent fraud or unfair trade 
practices. When I look at the FTC, I believe that it is the model of 
what a regulatory agency should be, efficient, fair, and flexible.
  My subcommittee will be looking closely at the FTC over the next few 
months and we will look for areas where the agency can be even more 
efficient and meet its statutory duties at a lower cost. However, 
eliminating the FTC would, in the end, wind up costing Americans far 
more in increased commercial fraud and bureaucratic waste than would be 
saved. I believe that this agency should continue to perform its 
mission and I will support efforts to see that it is able to do so.
  Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Chairman, once again, the House will pass a 
balanced budget resolution and will continue to keep its promises to 
all Americans. I am proud to say my colleagues on the Budget Committee 
and I have been able to continue our commitment to saving our 
children's future and providing for our seniors. This budget plan--the 
only plan to

[[Page H5251]]

balance the Federal budget while providing much needed tax relief, 
promotes growth, strengthens the Nation's defense, and ends the 
practice of runaway spending.
  But above all, the Republican budget shifts money and power from 
Washington bureaucrats and back into the hands of people. Under our 
plan, Americans will earn more and keep more of their money, as we 
release our Nation's children from the burden of our debt.
  This budget addresses Medicare's impending bankruptcy by 
strengthening and improving the program. It expands benefits for senior 
citizens by extending the Hospital Insurance Program through the year 
2008, 3 years beyond the President's plan. We also recommend increasing 
Medicare spending for each beneficiary from an average of $5,200 in 
1996 to $7,000 in 2002. And, contrary to the demagoguery by many 
willing to accept the status quo and stand idly by while Medicare burns 
its last flames, overall spending increases by 59 percent between now 
and 2002.
  With this budget, my colleagues and I have ended the old Washington 
formula that measures compassion by the number of bureaucrats on the 
government payroll. We maintain the current level of funding for 
LIHEAP, Education for the Disadvantaged, the Drug Free Schools Program. 
In addition, student loan volume will increase from $26.6 to $37.4 
billion.
  While the President talked about reforming welfare, and indeed 
campaigned on this very pledge, the only thing he has done on the issue 
is veto real reform, reform which he once championed. So once again, we 
help the President keep his promise to the American people by reforming 
the ineffective aspects, while maintaining the safety net for 
underprivileged Americans. Over the next 6 years, welfare spending will 
increase from $83.2 billion in 1996 to $105.5 billion in 2002.
  And we do all this while rolling back the Clinton tax increase of 
1993. We balance the budget, insure our national defense and protect 
our children's future. It's what the American people asked for in 1994, 
it's what Republicans said they would do and it's the right way to 
restore prosperity for all Americans.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of House 
Concurrent Resolution 178, the fiscal year 1997 budget resolution, 
clearly the best and most responsible of the proposals we consider here 
today.
  First and foremost, it draws a philosophical difference that 
fundamentally sets it apart from any of the alternatives--the Black 
Caucus and coalition budgets as well as the President's proposal: It 
seeks to shift power, money and influence out of Washington and back 
into the hands of the American people where it belongs. None of the 
other proposals can say that--each of them raises more revenue and 
keeps more of it at the Federal level.
  It also includes responsible tax cuts, and I emphasize the word 
``responsible.'' I categorically reject the claim that this budget 
resolution cuts taxes at the expense of the poor and elderly. First, 
the tax cuts are needed to balance the budget. Let me say that again--
the tax cuts are needed to balance the budget. Why is this? Because 
whenever we have decreased tax rates in the past, receipts have gone 
up. Cutting rates means less tax sheltering and this means more 
revenue. By also controlling spending--and this legislation includes 
130 Federal program terminations--we can live within our means.
  Furthermore, the social safety net programs in the Federal budget 
will be increased under this budget resolution. Medicare, Medicaid, 
education spending--all go up. These programs are not being cut to 
provide tax cuts for the wealthy--it just isn't true. Reforms that are 
included are necessary to save the programs.
  The President's own advisors have told the Congress that some of 
these programs are in very real danger of going bankrupt unless reforms 
are made now. We simply must face this very real problem now, or very 
quickly it will grow beyond our ability to control it.
  We can debate the size and shape of these reforms--I myself have 
questions about this--and as chairman of the Health Subcommittee, I 
will be active in this debate, but this budget resolution is simply a 
blueprint. It is a general guideline to set the tone for the budget 
debate to come. It is the beginning of the process, not the end.
  This guideline sets a responsible tone, it provides tax relief for 
America's families without endangering support programs for our 
Nation's elderly and veterans, it puts more money into the hands of the 
people and cuts the size of the Federal Government.
  I urge support for the resolution.
  Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of House 
Concurrent Resolution 178 and to express my particular support for the 
veterans provisions in the bill. As chairman of the Veterans 
Subcommittee on Compensation, Pension, Insurance and Memorial Affairs. 
I am very pleased that the Budget Committee has been able to craft a 
bill that will allow us to make improvements in several areas of 
veterans benefits, while at the same time moving us further toward a 
balanced budget.
  During a recent hearing, several veterans groups expressed their 
support for using the savings from legislation overturning the Court of 
Veterans Appeals decision, Davenport versus Brown to improve veterans 
benefits. The benefits improvements contained in House Concurrent 
Resolution 178 do just that, and I thank the committee for their 
foresight and patriotism.
  This is a good bill for veterans. First it will increase total VA 
outlays from $37.8 billion in fiscal year 1996 to $39.9 billion in 
fiscal year 2002. Over the next 6 years, VA spending would total $233.3 
billion which is $18.7 billion more than over the previous 6 years. 
This year, our budget provides $100 million more for VA medical care 
than requested by the President, and $5 billion more than the President 
over the next 6 years.
  For our older veterans, it strengthens the solvency of the Medicare 
Program and provides a 45-percent increase in spending for Medicare. 
Our middle-aged veterans will benefit through lower taxes and increased 
buying power. Their families will see increased education and 
entrepreneurial opportunities, and less government. Younger veterans 
will see a permanent $500 per child tax credit, an adoption tax credit, 
a repeal of the 1993 gasoline tax and improvements in health insurance 
and medical savings accounts.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to note that in testimony before the House 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs, VA Secretary Jesse Brown stated, ``the 
President's budget would be devastating for the VA.'' The Secretary 
also said that the President's budget would close the equivalent of 41 
hospitals, fire 60,000 employees, and deny care to as many as 1 million 
veterans.
  Further, when confronted with the facts regarding the President's 
budget for the VA, the Secretary likes to make a point that the 
President has agreed to negotiate the VA budget every year. Well, 
that's not good enough for me. If the President is such a strong 
supporter of veterans, let him put the money up front. Veterans 
benefits should not be negotiated.
  As I mentioned earlier, our bill improves several areas of veterans 
benefits. First, to help our severely disabled veterans, we are 
proposing to raise the one time automobile allowance from the current 
$5,500 to $10,000. That will make it easier for veterans who have lost 
the use of their limbs or sight to more easily afford transportation.
  Second, we have included legislation to extend compensation benefits 
to the day of death of a veteran. This may seem a small matter, but it 
is significant to bereaved spouses of veterans.
  Third, we are going to extend the period for which a surviving spouse 
can receive back benefits from the current 1 to a maximum of 2 years. 
This will partly make up for increased adjudication time at the VA 
which is now running about 3 years for a claim to be decided at the 
Board of Veterans' Appeals.
  We want to reward our veteran college students with an increase in 
their GI bill benefits by giving those who have a ``B'' average going 
into their senior year a scholarship. We also intend to provide an 
opportunity for those still on active duty to transfer from the less 
generous Post Vietnam Education Assistance Program [VEAP] to the 
current Montgomery GI bill. We'll also make it easier for veterans to 
become teachers by making permanent the ability to use their GI bill 
education benefits to pay for teaching certification.
  Finally, we are going to continue funding for the veterans pro bono 
legal representation program at the Court of Veterans Appeals. This 
program ensures that needy veterans with good cases are represented 
before the court. The program also assists the court by reducing the 
number of pro se cases before the court thereby reducing the time it 
takes the court to process claims.
  Mr. Chairman, it is important for veterans to compare the budgets 
before us today and decide for themselves whose budget is best for 
veterans and the Nation. I urge them to contact their elected officials 
and express their support for the bill.
  To my colleagues I say support House Concurrent Resolution 178 
because by doing so, you support America's veterans and ensure the 
economic security of the Nation.
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the 
Republican budget resolution for fiscal year 1997. The new Republican 
budget is nothing more than a rehash of the same extremist priorities 
from last year--including large tax breaks for the wealthy paid for by 
deep cuts in Medicare and Medicaid. House Concurrent Resolution 178 
also includes misguided cuts in education funding, unneeded boosts in 
defense spending and tax increases on 6 million hard working American 
families. There is no doubt that spending in certain areas can be 
reduced and programs can be reformed, particularly in the area of 
health care, but this budget goes too far.
  Mr. Speaker, the majority refuses to abandon the most outrageous part 
of their budget--unnecessary cuts in Medicare to finance tax breaks for 
the wealthy. This budget cuts

[[Page H5252]]

$168 billion from the Medicare Program--$124 billion from part A and 
$44 billion from part B. This plan sacrifices the quality and 
availability of senior's health care for a tax giveaway, which 
primarily benefits people making over $100,000 a year. The impact on 
senior citizens and hospitals is even more devastating than the cuts 
proposed last year.
  House Concurrent Resolution 178 puts the squeeze on hospitals, 
through deep cuts in the part of Medicare that pays hospital bills. 
These cuts could force many hospitals to close or reduce the services 
they now offer to their communities. Regardless of inflation, hospitals 
would get less than they do today in nominal dollars under this budget. 
In Philadelphia, our health care system and entire economy will be 
endangered by these insidious cuts. Many hospitals in my district, 
whose beneficiaries are predominantly Medicare and Medicaid patients, 
may have no alternative but to shut their doors.
  Mr. Speaker, House Concurrent Resolution 178 contains the same 
damaging structural changes to Medicare and Medicaid the President 
vetoed last year. It continues to rely on the untested and dangerous 
medical savings accounts as its centerpiece. The majority proposal 
would segment the Medicare population, leaving the traditional program 
with fewer dollars and a sicker pool of beneficiaries. It would drive 
up premiums and causing Medicare to wither on the vine. This proposal 
is of extreme significance to my district, the 20th oldest in the 
Nation. More than 100,000 senior citizens in my district rely on 
Medicare and they live on fixed incomes. This proposal could truly end 
universal health coverage for elderly, effectively reversing 30 years 
of progress.
  Mr. Speaker, the majority tries to hide its true intentions behind 
lofty rhetoric abut saving Medicare for the future. House Concurrent 
Resolution 178 extends Medicare's solvency for the same number of years 
as the President's plan--yet the GOP plan takes $44 billion more from 
Medicare. It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that the majority is using funds 
cut from Medicare to pay for their crown jewel--a $176 billion tax cut 
for wealthy Americans.
  In addition, the majority is still insisting on ending the Medicaid 
guarantee for 36 million Americans, including millions of senior 
citizens and children. Mr. Speaker, approximately 400,000 people in 
Philadelphia rely on Medicaid as their only source of health care. 
Without that guarantee, families will be forced to sell their homes to 
pay for nursing homes for their elderly parents. This budget cuts 
Federal medical spending by $72 billion, but the total cuts could still 
reach $250 billion over 7 years if States spend only the minimum 
required to receive their full block grant allocation. This potential 
$250 billion cut reduces spending growth per person below the general 
rate of inflation. Deep total cuts in Medicaid could place older 
Americans and people with disabilities at risk of losing optional 
Medicaid benefits. These cuts would place an additional financial 
burden on families caring for their parents and others with long-term 
care needs. In addition, the majority still insist on repealing Federal 
enforcement of nursing home quality standards that have dramatically 
improved the quality of nursing home care.
  Mr. Speaker, House Concurrent Resolution 178 also would raise taxes 
on between 6 and 10 million hard working American families by cutting 
the earned income tax credit program. The earned income tax credit 
benefited 40 million Americans in working families and has been proven 
to help people move off welfare. In addition, this budget continues the 
assault on educational opportunities for our Nation's young people by 
cutting more than $4.5 billion in educational assistance over the next 
6 years. The Republican majority has proposed to eliminate the direct 
student lending program, which provides educational assistance to over 
2.5 million students nationwide, as well as the Goals 2000 Program, and 
the State Incentive Grants Program.
  We cannot afford to slam the door of educational assistance on our 
young people nor rob our senior citizens of their right to adequate 
health care. Instead, Mr. Speaker, we should continue on the path to 
balance with a bipartisan budget that rejects the radical policies 
contained in this budget and moves forward with a plan that truly 
reflects the values of mainstream America.
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of House Concurrent 
Resolution 178, the fiscal year 1997 House budget resolution. Like the 
Republican Majority's budget proposals of last year, this measure sets 
the course for a balanced Federal budget for the first time in a 
generation. For nearly three decades, the Federal Government has 
recklessly overspent, accumulating a national debt of $5 trillion. This 
year, the interest on that debt will reach $344 billion. A child born 
today inherits a tax bill of $187,746 just to pay for their share of 
that interest. At this point, it does not matter who is to blame. What 
does matter is that we reverse this dangerous course before it is too 
late.
  House Concurrent Resolution 178 is a budget plan which will give our 
children a future that promises economic opportunity and prosperity. 
This 6-year budget plan envisions a smaller, less intrusive Federal 
Government. Downsizing will be accomplished by eliminating wasteful or 
duplicative programs, sharing more power with States and local 
communities, and lessening the burden of taxation and regulation which 
has a stranglehold on our Nation's families and businesses. While House 
Concurrent Resolution 178 would reduce Federal spending by 
approximately $700 billion over the next 6 years, overall Federal 
spending would still increase 3 percent annually during this period, 
rather than near 5 percent annual spending growth under current law.
  House Concurrent Resolution 178 is not a perfect resolution. The 
House Budget Committee has presented recommendations of programmatic 
changes which can be implemented to achieve a balanced budget. The 
Budget Committee's illustrative cuts and reforms, however, include some 
suggestions which I find objectionable. Specifically, these include the 
elimination of the Department of Energy [DOE] and the corporatization 
of its national laboratories. I have written the chairman of the Budget 
Committee regarding these provisions, where savings yielded are 
questionable at best. Furthermore, I plan to be very active in the 
debate should the House consider related legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, although I have these concerns about the budget plan's 
energy-related provisions, House Concurrent Resolution 178 has many 
more positives than negatives. I would also note that the 
recommendations in this plan are nonbinding; to be implemented, each 
recommendation must be considered through the Committee process, 
adopted by both Houses of Congress, and signed into law by the 
President.
  Time and time again, the President and the Democrats in Congress have 
disregarded the call from around the country for fiscal responsibility; 
instead, they seem intent on being dragged kicking and screaming into 
the 21st century. The Republican budget plan is a credible approach 
toward eliminating the budget deficit and revitalizing our economic and 
budget outlook today and in years to come. Mr. Chairman, I urge all of 
my colleagues to support this most important measure and its underlying 
goal of a balanced Federal budget.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Republican 
budget proposal we have before us today. This is a proposal which shows 
that the Republicans have not learned from last year's budget debate. 
Last year, when the Republican proposals came to light, the American 
people overwhelmingly voiced opposition to the extreme policies of 
cutting health care for the elderly, gutting environmental protection, 
and cutting such crucial investments as education, in order to provide 
massive tax breaks and increase defense spending. It was not just the 
dollars cut from the programs, the Gingrich/Dole budget also 
fundamentally changed these programs, reneging on the basic assurances 
of health care, education and work opportunities, and devastating the 
environment.
  I support responsible spending reductions and statistics show that 
the budget downpayment accomplished during 1993 and 1994 by Congress 
and the President has paid off in terms of really reducing the deficit. 
That downpayment has led to the lowest deficit level since the Carter 
administration. The Congressional Budget Office [CBO] reports that the 
deficit for fiscal year 1996, when measured against the size of the 
economy, will be 1.9 percent of the GDP, the lowest level since 1979! 
The numbers also show that it is the first time the deficit will have 
dropped 4 years in a row since President Truman was in office.
  The deficit is too high, but we have made progress. Now the 
congressional Republicans want to waste that hard work with tax breaks 
for short term political gain and platitudes of spending cuts way down 
the road. It is largely because of improved economic figures and the 
fact that their budget window is now 6 years instead of 7, that the 
Republicans come to us today with cuts which they claim are more 
moderate than last year's budget proposal. But although their numbers 
appear more moderate, the GOP/Gingrich core policy proposals are still 
drastic, with skewed priorities for our Nation's future.
  The Gingrich budget plan once again relies on massive cuts in 
Medicare and Medicaid programs which help over 70 million Americans 
gain access to health insurance. It is clear that there are serious 
problems with our current health care system. Congress should be acting 
to expand health care coverage and rein in escalating health care 
costs, but instead, Republicans are focused on tearing our Nation's 
health safety net, potentially adding millions more to the ranks of the 
uninsured. The plan puts Federal health care on a defined contribution 
basis, not the existing assurance of health care to those who need it.
  The Republican Medicare plan continues to include the same 
policy proposals as last

[[Page H5253]]

year's plan, drastically cutting payments to providers, restructuring 
the current program and heavily relying on untested medical savings 
accounts. Once again, although changes are needed in the Medicare Part 
A Program to extend solvency, the Republican plan goes too far, 
changing Medicare from reliable health insurance for our seniors to a 
second-class health care system. The claim of solvency is only a 
pretext for the out-of-context policy the GOP pursues.

  Perhaps even more damaging than the Medicare cuts are the cuts and 
program changes planned for Medicaid. Medicaid provides health benefits 
to 36 million Americans, including 443,000 Minnesotans. Under the 
Republican plan, the seniors, people with disabilities, and low-income 
families who receive help from Medicaid, will be at risk of losing 
their coverage. In addition, States will be allowed to reduce their own 
share of funding for Medicaid, making the actual cuts much more severe 
than they appear in the resolution. Again, it is important to note that 
Federal defined contribution plans will not provide the defined 
benefits that many rely upon each and every day.
  As we head into the 21st century, one of the most important 
investments our Nation should make is in education. Republicans once 
again want to make the same extreme cuts as in last year's resolution. 
The budget hits students who need help with higher education costs by 
eliminating the Direct Loan Program, and eliminating new funding for 
Perkins loans and State student incentive grants. The budget makes a 
host of other education cuts, such as eliminating Goals 2000, bilingual 
education, and immigrant education programs. Further, the proposal 
slashes funding for job training, such as the programs consolidated in 
the CAREERS bill. This budget resolution goes too far by cutting these 
programs 28 percent below the levels in the CAREERS bill, which already 
cut the programs by 20 percent. Alas, it becomes clear that the goal of 
consolidation is the justification to shrink the block grant programs. 
Pretending that efficiency will make up 45-percent cuts in programs 
doesn't hold up to commonsense evaluation.
  On the environmental front, the budget resolution calls for a 26-
percent cut in natural resources programs by 2002. Even as we see more 
and more visitors to national parks and more public interest in 
protecting and enjoying our national heritage, the Republicans want to 
slash Federal protection of these resources. We all know that 
effectively protecting resources is expensive and that if we want to 
truly protect our environment, we have to allocate sufficient funding. 
The funding level in this budget resolution simply will not adequately 
protect our environment for future generations. In addition, the 
Republican budget blueprint once again advocates destroying forever the 
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge [ANWR] by permitting oil and gas 
exploration and drilling. ANWR is the last great piece of American 
wilderness, and opening the refuge area to drilling will assure 
destruction of this priceless and irreplaceable treasure.

  The budget blueprint contains negative policies which harm long-
standing labor laws that protect American men and women, such as 
repealing the Davis-Bacon Act and the Service Contract Act, and gutting 
OSHA. Under Republican policies, fair treatment for working families 
would be jettisoned and corporate management would set the rules 
without adequate safeguards or monitoring.
  Another area which merits concern are the cuts in housing and 
community and regional development. Continuing to cut housing when it 
has already been targeted for cuts in the past is pouring salt on the 
wounds of those most in need. In addition, the community development 
programs of CDBG and CDFI have their administration merged with the 
HOME program and transferred to States and local governments, 
accompanied by severe budget cuts. Again the block grants are given 
short shrift. How can this majority Republican Congress advance more 
block grants when it reneges on the basic tenet?
  In fact, the treatment of community development in this budget 
resolution shows the danger of turning programs into block grants--
underfunding. Block grants and ceding control of programs to the States 
have been the mantra of this new Republican majority. However, as the 
budget belt tightens, Republicans seek cuts to the block grants, 
leaving State and local governments with all the flexibility, but with 
no funding to administer the programs or provide the services. This 
should serve as a warning to all those who advocate block grants as the 
answer for every problem.
  This GOP budget recommends a 50-percent cut in the Federal Flood 
Insurance Program. Areas that are cut from funding no doubt will not 
find affordable insurance and when the damage occurs the Congress will 
reply with 100 percent Federal assistance. This is the final analysis: 
It will not save money, it will cost Federal taxpayers, and create 
political gamesmanship and more uncertainty. The GOP budget calls for 
$312 billion in unspecified domestic discretionary spending in the next 
6 years, meaning that the cuts already illustrated would be eclipsed by 
yet more savage slashes in future years. However, some sacrosanct pet 
programs are spared. Even while funding cuts and negative policy 
changes are proposed for health care, education, infrastructure, the 
environment, and community development, the Republican's plan proposes 
an increase in 1997 defense spending of $12 billion over the Pentagon's 
budget request. Most of this new spending goes to unrequested weapons 
systems, including a host of new planes, helicopters, submarines, and 
ships, above what is necessary for our national defense. The irony of 
these budget priorities is that the United States will enter the next 
century with more smart weapons systems, but fewer smart soldiers to 
operate these sophisticated weapons systems.
  We can continue to responsibly reduce the deficit, and proposals have 
been put forth to show that we can do it in a fair manner. The 
Republicans make the task of deficit reduction a political sham by 
insisting on including tax breaks of $124 to $175 billion in their 
budget plans. The amount that the Republicans project for the cost of 
the one tax item is $124 billion and is not sufficient to pay for their 
additional proposed tax break policies, meaning that the cost of the 
tax changes will be much higher when the entire policies are in place.

  The tax policies in the resolution do not reflect fairness, as the 
measure greatly reduces the earned income tax credit for the working 
poor while making low-income families ineligible for the new children's 
tax credit. The children's tax credit will not benefit 34 percent of 
the Nation's children because their parents' income is so low that the 
nonreimbursement tax credit policy denies the child credit for low 
income families. In addition, the Gingrich/GOP plan leaves the option 
open for a capital gains tax break, a proven budget buster. Instead of 
including these unfair tax policies in their plan, Republicans should 
use these funds to moderate the cuts in other programs.
  During the past year, the Republican majority has consistently shown 
that they do not value programs or protections for American working 
families and seniors, ranging from affordable health care and a clean 
environment, to quality education and a livable wage. Unfortunately, as 
this fiscal year 1997 budget proposal shows, they have not been 
listening to the consistent and concerned response of the American 
people, which has been opposition to the Republicans' extreme actions. 
The American people understand that in pursuit of fiscal and deficit 
balance, we should not accept human deficit and social imbalance. The 
people expect shared sacrifice, not the Gingrich cuts for people 
programs and tax breaks for the rich, the policy that the GOP is intent 
on advancing. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Republican budget 
resolution.
  Mr. KIM. Mr. Chairman, here we are again. It was just about a year 
ago that we stood here on the House floor, debating the Republican plan 
to balance the Federal budget.
  By now, we are all familiar with what happened in that debate. In 
response to our attempt to balance the budget, Republicans were 
confronted with one of the most savage political attacks in the history 
of this country.
  We were called ``mean-spirited'', ``uncaring'', and ``extremist''. 
The American people were told that we didn't care about old people and 
that we wanted to starve innocent children. All of this despite the 
fact that our budget actually increased spending on Medicaid, Medicare, 
school lunches, student loans, and other programs that help the most 
vulnerable in our society.
  Fortunately, the Republican Congress weathered these desperate 
attacks and fulfilled its promise to pass a balanced budget bill. 
Unfortunately, President Clinton's veto made all of our efforts go for 
naught.
  But, as they say, ``if you don't succeed, try, try again''--and that 
is exactly what we are doing. Today, we are considering another bill 
that lays our a concrete plan to balance the Federal budget by 2002.
  Before I talk about some of the specifics of our proposal, I would 
like to say a few words about why we will not give up on our efforts to 
balance the Federal budget.
  The reason we are back on the floor today, trying to balance the 
budget, is simple. If we do not get Federal spending under control, we 
risk leaving our children and grandchildren with a mountain of Federal 
debt that will never be able to be repaid.
  If we do nothing, our children will face a country with higher 
interest rates, lower economic growth, and fewer jobs than there would 
be under a balanced budget.
  If we do nothing, the safety net that supports the poor, the elderly, 
and the disadvantaged will collapse under the sheer weight of 
Government debt.
  My Democratic colleagues accuse us of lacking compassion, but I say 
to them: How compassionate is it to borrow from our children and leave 
them to pay the bills?
  How compassionate is it to allow the Federal safety net to collapse 
because of our unwillingness to do what needs to be done?

[[Page H5254]]

  How compassionate is it to duck the hard choices, just to make things 
more difficult for those who come after us?
  The answer is obvious: It is not compassionate at all. It is time for 
us to take responsibility for ourselves and put our Nation's finances 
in order. And that is exactly what the Republican budget does.
  The bottom line of our budget proposal is simple. Under our bill, the 
Federal Government would experience steadily declining deficits between 
now and 2002--when we would actually have a $3.2 billion surplus. For 
the record, that would be the first time in nearly 30 years that the 
Federal Government runs a surplus--truly a historic accomplishment.
  But deficit numbers alone don't tell the whole story of the 
Republican balanced budget. Our budget proposes much more. A 
comprehensive overhaul of how our Government does business.
  The bill starts by proposing fundamental reform of entitlements. It 
would probably surprise most folks to learn that the largest portion of 
the Federal budget, by far, is entitlement spending. In fact, spending 
on entitlement programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security 
currently consumes about two-thirds of the Federal budget. And, if we 
do nothing, spending on these programs will eventually consume the 
entire Federal budget, leaving nothing for education, defense, or any 
other Federal program.
  Accordingly, one of the top priorities in the Republican budget is to 
get entitlement spending under control. Our budget starts by reforming 
Medicare.
  As most of my colleagues are aware, the Medicare trustees warned last 
year that the Medicare trust fund would be bankrupt by 2002 if Congress 
did not act. Since then, things have only gotten worse. Medicare was 
$4.2 billion in the red this year and is now projected to go broke even 
sooner that expected, possibly as soon as the year 2000. If we allow 
that to happen, we will be putting the health care of millions of 
seniors at risk.
  Obviously, we can't let that happen. That's why our budget includes 
Medicare reforms that would slow the explosive growth of this vital 
program. Note that I did not say cut. That's because the Republican 
budget does not cut Medicare. Our plan merely slows the rate of growth 
of Medicare from the current rate of 10 percent per year to about 7 
percent a year. In doing so, our plan would save Medicare from 
bankruptcy, while still expanding the ability of seniors to make 
choices about their own health care.
  But let me repeat. Our plan does not cut Medicare. In fact, Medicare 
spending under the Republican budget will increase from $196 billion 
this year to $284 billion in 2002.
  In addition to Medicare reforms, our budget makes needed reforms to a 
number of other entitlements program.
  For example, our proposal incorporates much of a Medicaid reform plan 
proposed earlier this year by a bipartisan group of our Nation's 
Governors. Currently, Medicaid spending is growing by an unsustainable 
19 percent a year. By giving States more flexibility in how they 
administer Medicaid, this proposal would reduce this rate to 6.6 
percent growth per year, twice the rate of inflation. In doing so, the 
Republican budget would save $77 billion over the next 6 years while 
preserving the health safety net for the poor.
  The budget resolution also calls for reform of our Nation's ailing 
welfare system. As my colleagues are aware, earlier this year President 
Clinton vetoed a Republican welfare reform bill that would have 
fulfilled his own promise to ``end welfare as we know it.'' Our bill 
calls for Congress and the President to give welfare reform one more 
try, and save $53 billion in taxpayer dollars over the next 6 years.
  Let me say one last thing about the entitlement reforms proposed in 
our budget. We have left Social Security alone. Republicans made that 
promise in the 1994 elections, and we plan to stick by it.
  Besides entitlement reforms, the Republican budget also proposes an 
overhaul of the Byzantine government bureaucracy that has grown up over 
the past few decades. Our budget starts by eliminating 130 wasteful and 
unnecessary Federal programs, including Goals 2000, the National 
Endowment for the Arts, and the President's AmeriCorps Program which, 
according to the Government Accounting Office, costs taxpayers over 
$25,000 per volunteer. The bill also proposes deep reductions in our 
foreign aid spending--$14.2 billion over the next 6 years.
  Most importantly, however, our budget calls for the elimination of 
two Cabinet Departments, Energy and Commerce, that duplicate the 
missions of other departments and which have clearly outlived their 
usefulness. In doing so, this bill would save over $10 billion per 
year. I am especially proud of this element of our budget--I believe 
that nothing demonstrates our commitment to dramatic change than our 
willingness to take on special interests and eliminate these wasteful 
Cabinet agencies.
  Finally, I want to address one of the most important aspects of the 
Republican budget resolution: Tax relief for working Americans.
  As many of my colleagues are aware, Americans spend a great deal of 
time working for the Government instead of for themselves. This year, 
the average American worked until May 7--longer than ever before--to 
pay their taxes.
  Another astonishing statistic. According to a recent report by the 
Tax Foundation, the top 50 percent of all taxpayers pay 95 percent of 
all taxes. That means that if you are in the top 50 percent of 
taxpayers, you are not only working to support your own family, but you 
are probably working to support someone else's as well.
  To me, this doesn't make any sense. We should be doing everything 
possible to help workers in this country make ends meet, not weighing 
them down with a crushing tax burden. But that is exactly what we are 
doing.
  For this reason, I am pleased that our budget contains meaningful tax 
relief for working Americans. The centerpiece of our plan is a $500-
per-child tax credit for middle-class families that will help those 
families make ends meet. Our budget also contains a repeal of President 
Clinton's 1993 gas tax hike, expansion of tax credits for adoption, 
enhanced health insurance deductions for the self-employed, and raising 
the Social Security earnings limit. Finally, the bill contains a 
reduction in job-killing capital gains taxes.
  I strongly support these tax reductions. They are fair, reasonable, 
and targeted toward working individuals and families who are most in 
need of tax relief. I also believe that the tax relief contained in the 
Republican budget is a dividend to American taxpayers for our efforts 
to reduce wasteful Federal spending.
  In sum, Mr. Chairman, the budget we are considering today represents 
the Republican vision for the future. Smaller, more cost-effective 
Government, a balanced Federal budget, and lower taxes. I don't think 
that there is much doubt that these priorities are the priorities of 
the American people. The question is: Are we going to look past 
partisan political rhetoric and do the right thing, or are we going to 
succumb to the temptation of business as usual?
  For our sake, and the sake of our children, who will have to pay the 
bills that we leave behind, I hope that we will choose to take the 
former approach. It is time to do the right thing for the economic 
future of this country. I urge my colleagues to support the Republican 
balanced budget resolution.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this 
ridiculous, radical, and revolting Republican resolution to cram a 
devastating budget down the throats of the American people. When I 
first read the Gingrich-Armey Republican budget proposal, I recalled 
hearing that it was deja vu all over again. As I studied the Republican 
budget more, I realized that the Republicans must have really enjoyed 
shutting down the Federal Government so much last year that they want 
to do it all over again.
  Then I thought about how the drastic cuts to so many Federal programs 
would effect so many people--not just the hard working Federal worker 
who experienced so much frustration about wanting to do their jobs and 
not being able to--but also the many senior citizens who rely on the 
Medicare system to pay for their medical care. The Republicans want to 
cut Medicare by over $167 billion over 6 years. These cuts are as deep 
as the ones the Republicans tried to get away with last year. Not only 
deep cuts to fund Medicare--when Medicare isn't there to pay the 
medical and hospital bills for seniors, they will have to pay more out 
of their own pocket or not receive the needed health care. The 
restructuring of the Medicare program proposed by the Republicans could 
threaten the very existence of Medicare.
  All over again, just like they tried to get away with last year, the 
Republicans propose to cut Medicaid funds to States to provide health 
coverage to the poor, the disabled, and pregnant women. If the 
Republicans would have their way in this budget, Medicaid would be cut 
by $72 billion over the next 6 years, and the total reduction in 
funding could be as high as $250 billion. The Republican budget 
proposes to tear down the existing Medicaid Program in which the 
Federal Government and the American people have already invested 
literally billions of dollars, and replace it with a patchwork system 
of block grants to States. This combination would jeopardize health 
care for millions of low-income children and pregnant women, seniors in 
nursing homes, and the disabled, as well as low-income seniors who 
depend on Medicaid to pay their Medicare part B premiums.
  All over again, the Republicans want to cut funds for the education 
of America's children. How many times do the American people have to 
tell the Republicans that education is a high priority and that the 
best education cannot be provided on a shoestring. The Republicans are 
trying to hide the fact that they are

[[Page H5255]]

again trying to cut education programs, claiming that funding would be 
frozen at 1996 levels. In discretionary programs, that would mean real 
cuts of about 22 percent below the already reduced 1996 level in the 6 
years through the year 2002 that this resolution covers.
  Now, let's talk about tax breaks. I have a quiz for you: Do you think 
the Republican budget attempts again to provide capital gains tax 
breaks for the wealthy, or, do you think the Republicans are proposing 
to sneak in a $20 billion tax increase on low-income working families 
to pay for the rich to get a tax break? Too hard? Not if you've been 
awake for that last 2 years and watched the Gingrich-Armey Republicans 
try over and over again to pay back their wealthy supporters by trying 
to give the rich every tax break and funding advantage they could.
  Let's get serious, Republicans. Do you think the American people are 
really going to lay down and let you shove this ridiculous budget down 
their throats? Not if I can help it, and thank goodness, not if 
President Clinton can help it--and he can. He has the guts and the pen 
to stop these radical Republican proposals. Let's defeat this 
Republican budget proposal now, so we can really get down to business 
before we have a repeat of last year's Government shutdowns and threats 
of tax increases and teacher layoffs. I urge a ``no'' vote on this 
Republican budget proposal.
  Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Chairman, as sponsor of the balanced budget 
amendment which passed this House last year, my concern for the 
financial future of our country is well known. I support a balanced 
Federal budget because we owe it to our children and grandchildren. It 
would be unconscionable to saddle them with the accumulated debts that 
we ourselves failed to pay. In this regard, I am very pleased that all 
the budget plans we are considering here today also envision a balanced 
budget by the year 2002, as well.
  However, I am concerned about the treatment of solar and renewable 
energy programs and the complete elimination of wind energy research 
and development in House Concurrent Resolution 178. These large funding 
cuts will greatly harm American research efforts in these important 
technologies and give our foreign competitors an unparalled opportunity 
to take the world lead from the United States in this high-growth 
field.
  We have seen other kinds of new technologies invented and developed 
by Americans, only to be successfully deployed by foreign countries. 
This is the so-called VCR syndrome. We are now in danger of letting our 
technological leadership in another important field slip away once 
again.
  Proponents of cutting the budget for renewables point out that they 
are merely eliminating corporate welfare. To this I must note that the 
great majority of companies involved in the research, manufacture, 
distribution, and supply of renewable energy technologies are 
classified as small businesses by the U.S. Small Business 
Administration. Rather than eliminating handouts to corporate giants, 
these funding cuts are pulling the rug from under the thousands of 
small businesses which employ tens of thousands of Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, through careful allocation of available funding 
resources, we can fully support renewable energy technologies and still 
have a balanced Federal budget. This is a combination that will benefit 
present and future generations of Americans. I will continue to work 
throughout the budget process this year to ensure that renewables get 
fair funding treatment.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the fiscal year 
1997 budget resolution offered today. The fiscal year 1997 budget 
resolution represents a continued attack on the health, safety and 
well-being of the majority of the American people. While not as drastic 
as the budget proposed by the Republican majority last year, this 
budget also is too extreme. By cutting Medicare and Medicaid, the 
safety net for vulnerable populations--the elderly, disabled, and poor 
children and families--will be in jeopardy, I cannot support a budget 
that includes massive Federal spending for new tax breaks while other 
critical programs, including Medicare, Medicaid, and earned income tax 
credit--are greatly weakened. This is not a realistic budget. We 
cannot, and should not, enact a budget such as this that promises to 
cut spending and cut taxes. If we are serious about reducing the 
deficit--as I am--we should make the hard choices to being our Federal 
spending in line. This budget, however, promises to make life easier 
for the affluent, while balancing the budget on the backs of the poor 
and disadvantaged.
  I support a balanced budget. In fact, I have cosponsored and voted in 
favor of amending the U.S. Constitution to mandate a balanced Federal 
budget. However, while the fiscal year 1997 budget resolution passed by 
this committee achieves balance on paper, I cannot support the callous 
and irresponsible policy assumptions it uses to achieve these savings. 
The policy implications have very real consequences to the citizens of 
this Nation.
  I am especially concerned about the deep cuts in discretionary 
spending included in this budget. Certainly, we must take serious steps 
to carefully scrutinize every portion of our Federal budget in order to 
control Federal spending and bring our deficit under control. However, 
the cuts in discretionary spending included here are too harsh and will 
have a serious impact on millions of Americans, most notably the 
vulnerable populations that continue to be left behind as we change our 
Federal priorities.
  For example, the cuts in education leave me very concerned about the 
future of this Nation. The education of our children must be a top 
priority. The education our children receive should be adequate in 
keeping the U.S. economy competitive as we move into the next century. 
American children rank dismally in math and science achievement 
compared with students from other nations. The proportion of young 
people completing high school has remained stagnant for a decade, 
despite the ever-increasing demands for education in the job market. 
National education reforms under President George Bush's Goals 2000 
program pointed our Nation in the right direction. This budget, 
however, eliminates Goals 2000. Having all our students starting school 
ready to learn, increasing the high school graduation rate, teaching 
every adult to read and keeping drugs and violence out of schools are 
not goals we should abandon. While our deficit needs to be eliminated, 
we must not decimate the education of future generations.
  Under this budget, the Legal Services Corporation is cut drastically 
in fiscal year 1997--a large step toward the total elimination of the 
program by 1999. The Legal Services Corporation is a good example of a 
Federal program that is effectively being administered at the local 
level. The leadership of this House claims to want to expand the role 
of state and local authority while shrinking the size of the Federal 
Government. The Legal Services Corporation is a prime example of how 
local control of a Federal program is working. The creators of the LSC 
recognized that decisions about how legal services should be allocated 
are best made not by officials in Washington, but at a local level, by 
the people who understand the problems that face their communities. The 
LSC provides funds to 323 programs operating over 1,200 neighborhood 
law offices. Together they serve every county in the Nation. LSC 
programs provide services to more than 1.7 million clients a year, 
benefiting approximately 5 million individuals, the majority of them 
children living in poverty. The phase-out of the LSC represented in 
this budget eliminates a much-needed program and threatens the life and 
well-being of every poor or near-poor person in this country.
  A well-maintained transportation network is essential for economic 
development. If highways cannot be maintained, our goods cannot move in 
commerce. Similarly, without continued attention to our Nation's 
airports, delays and other difficulties will slow our economy's growth. 
In addition, transit funding provides immediate benefits for economic 
development, carrying low-income people to their place of work and 
reducing congestion in metropolitan areas.
  Transportation should not bear higher cuts than other programs. This 
budget phases out Federal assistance the operation of mass transit 
systems. Operating assistance is essential to transit systems across 
the Nation. Transit systems are already taking serious steps to cope 
with federal operating cuts of nearly 50 percent in fiscal year 1996 
and 12 percent in fiscal year 1995. Transit systems, by necessity, are 
operating more efficiently yet still must cut services and increase 
fares. The complete elimination of operating assistance would have a 
drastic impact and could eliminate necessary public transportation in 
communities across our nation.
  The elimination of funding for mass transit is just one example of 
the hypocrisy of this budget. As this budget pushes people into the 
workforce it takes away their means of getting to work. This budget is 
unfair and should not be passed by this House.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to House 
Concurrent Resolution 178, the fiscal year 1997 budget resolution. I 
have numerous reservations with the funding priorities and assumptions 
contained in this resolution. However, I will take this opportunity to 
highlight three important issues--the deep cuts proposed in 
discretionary agriculture spending, the ill-advised Medicaid proposal, 
and the proposed elimination of Federal involvement in fossil energy 
research.
  The budget resolution for fiscal year 1997 again makes a deep cut in 
agriculture spending. This Congress passed, earlier this year, an 
extreme overhaul of farm programs, setting them on the road to eventual 
elimination. Now in this budget resolution, this committee has decided 
to make an extreme reduction in the amount of discretionary spending 
for agriculture.

[[Page H5256]]

  The resolution makes the recommendation to cut total agricultural 
discretionary spending from $3.9 billion in fiscal year 1997 to $2.1 
billion in 2002, a staggering reduction in budget authority. This 
discretionary cut mostly takes the form of unspecified reductions in 
U.S. Department of Agriculture overhead costs. The members of the 
committee and rural America are left to wonder if these cuts will be in 
the delivery of farm programs, the delivery of conservation programs, 
or the quality of nutrition and food safety programs. Clearly each and 
every function of the Department of Agriculture will be impacted by 
these assumptions. This committee should question if this is the 
appropriate time to be making these cuts when commodity stocks are at 
their lowest point in a generation, the livestock industry remains in 
extreme distress and new plant diseases continue to spread across the 
nation's heartland.
  The budget resolution does specify some specific cuts. These cuts are 
mainly in USDA research programs. With commodity support already cut by 
the new farm bill, our producers need quality agricultural research 
more than ever to protect themselves against diseases, insects and 
changing environmental conditions. The new farm bill addresses many of 
the concerns related to competitive research projects and facilities 
buildings projects. The Agriculture Committee currently is undertaking 
a comprehensive review of agriculture research programs and will be 
writing specific legislation to address the needs of agricultural 
research in the future. The Agriculture Committee should be allowed to 
do its work without being locked into an extremely restrictive budget 
scenario before it is finished.
  Finally the budget resolution phases out both title I and title III 
of the Public Law 480 Food for Peace Program. Again, the new farm bill 
promised American farmers that their future profitability would be 
derived from the world market. Now we are witnessing the elimination of 
one of the most successful export enhancement programs ever.
  In this budget resolution we see the broken promises of the freedom 
to farm bill. As the freedom to farm bill was being passed, sponsors 
hailed a new era in farm policy, promised strengthened research 
programs and dangled the riches of the world market in front of 
American farmers. Now we can see that those promises are broken barely 
2 months after the bill was signed. We are willing to do our share to 
balance the budget, but rural Americans cannot continue to take these 
extreme and unfair budgetary hits.
  With regard to Medicaid, I have deep concern about the provisions of 
the majority's proposed budget for Medicaid. I do recognize that, at 
least with respect to the commitment of Federal Medicaid funding, this 
budget makes significant progress over the majority's effort last 
year--from the proposed reduction of $182 billion over 7 years last 
year to $72 billion over 7 years this year. It thus appears that after 
a year of rigorous analysis and intense debate, the members of the 
majority have been persuaded that the Federal Government simply cannot 
make cuts on the order of those proposed last year without jeopardizing 
the health of some of our Nation's most vulnerable populations.
  Despite the progress this budget represents, however, I remain deeply 
concerned that it will undermine the central mission of the Medicaid 
Program, which is to provide a minimum level of health care to the 
children, the elderly, and the disabled of this Nation. During 
committee markup, I offered a sense-of-the-House amendment to preserve 
the basic program elements critical to the performance of Medicaid's 
mission. The committee rejected this amendment, indicating that the 
level of progress represented by this budget is not as substantial as 
the reduced Federal cuts suggest. Unfortunately, the improved Federal 
funding level in this budget masks a series of policy proposals that 
will jeopardize the health of children, seniors, and the disabled.
  Mr. Chairman, let me be clear that my concerns about this budget stem 
not from any hesitation about whether to reform Medicaid. Medicaid must 
be reformed through such measures as utilization of managed care, 
enhanced State flexibility, and the streamlining of regulations. Yet 
the goal of reform is to improve the program's effectiveness, not to 
undermine it.
  Perhaps the greatest threat to Medicaid's mission contained in this 
budget is the dramatic reduction in State contributions it allows. In 
addition to limiting Federal contributions, the budget caps State 
contributions to Medicaid at 40 percent, allowing the many States with 
match rates between 41 and 50 percent to lower their required 
contributions. Thus, although the Federal cut has been reduced to $72 
billion, the total potential reduction in Medicaid spending after 
accounting for reduced State contributions is $265 billion. It is 
simply not possible to withdraw these vast sums from the system without 
endangering the health safety net that Medicaid has historically 
provided to North Dakotans and others around this Nation.
  This budget would also permit States to use discredited--and 
currently illegal--funding mechanisms to further limit State 
contributions to Medicaid. Once again, States could establish schemes 
to tax providers or collect intergovernmental transfers from State 
entities, later rebating these funds to the payors, labeling the 
rebates as Medicaid expenditures, and claiming Federal matching funds 
for them. Given that the payment of such rebates involves no genuine 
State outlays for health services, legalizing these sham financing 
systems make State matching requirements meaningless.
  The majority points with pride to the list of groups and services 
covered under the Medicaid proposal contained in this budget. Upon 
review, however, several important groups have been excluded and the 
list of covered services is revealed as a largely empty promise. With 
respect to covered services, this budget merely requires states to 
offer some of the various health services listed, while repealing all 
of the Federal standards that speak to the amount, duration, and scope 
of these services. Thus, a State could cover only a few days of 
hospital care even in the event of a serious illness such as a heart 
attack. Without the minimal Federal standards, people guaranteed 
coverage under the majority's plan may find the guarantee to be a 
hollow one.
  One of the groups excluded by this budget is poor children. This 
budget repeals the guarantee of health care coverage for children over 
the age of 12 living in low-income families, more than half of whom 
have parents who work. For low-income parents in North Dakota, knowing 
that the basic health care of their children will still be covered if 
they leave the welfare rolls has been an important element in 
encouraging the transition from government dependence to productive 
employment. Thus, not only will this repeal endanger the health of 
these vulnerable children, it will provide a strong disincentive for 
parents to move from welfare to work. With respect to the disabled, 
this budget repeals the federal definition of disability, allowing 
states to narrow this definition as they see fit and thereby exclude 
many disabled Americans from coverage.
  Mr. Chairman, this budget also threatens senior citizens. While under 
the majority's plan States are supposed to abide by federal nursing 
home quality standards, Federal monitoring of quality is terminated and 
States will have nearly unfettered discretion with regard to monitoring 
and enforcement. We must not forget that it was precisely because many 
States proved incapable of ensuring quality nursing home care that 
Congress was prompted to enact basic quality standards in 1987. In 
another strike against seniors, one that will have particular impact in 
North Dakota, this budget substantially reduces payment by Medicaid of 
copayments, premiums, and deductibles for those Medicare beneficiaries 
whose income is below the poverty line. Given that many low-income 
seniors already devote large portions of their monthly budgets to 
health care costs, this cutback will force seniors into a cruel choice 
between staying health and meeting life's other basic expenses.
  Mr. Chairman, I will work diligently to address the flaws outlined 
above and I am hopeful that the majority will join in this effort. As 
we move forward to balance the Federal budget, we must not abandon the 
long-standing Federal commitment to the basic health of the children, 
seniors and disabled of our Nation.
  Finally, I have serious concerns about the provisions in this 
resolution which would eliminate the Federal Government's involvement 
in fossil energy research and development. This is very short-sighted 
policy. Research may not immediately improve profitability, but the 
long-term benefits are immeasurable. With respect to fossil energy, 
development of new energy processes to the point of commercially 
acceptable financial and technical risk is a long road that regulated 
industries have not been willing to go alone. Those joint private-
federal ventures which have been undertaken, like the numerous projects 
underway at the Energy and Environmental Research Center in Grand 
Forks, ND, have brought a wealth of information to the energy industry.
  The Federal Government has a stake in research and development of 
fossil fuels. For example, utilities are not going to initiate their 
own research on emission controls. If they did, it would be an open 
invitation to regulators to impose new or stricter standards and bigger 
costs under the doctrine of best available control technology. What's 
more, energy markets are specialized and highly competitive and would 
be unlikely to consider complementary solutions.
  Without the Federal Government's involvement in fossil energy 
research and development, it is unlikely this important work would be 
done. In fact, many companies have eliminated their alternative fuels 
programs, leaving only a tiny contingent of researcher. It is in the 
national interest to preserve this infrastructure with limited Federal 
funding.

[[Page H5257]]

  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Republican budget 
resolution.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, as we all know, the Budget Resolution does 
not have the force of law, but is a working document Congress uses to 
set the spending limits and broad priorities for the appropriations 
process through which the spending plan for the coming fiscal year is 
put in place.
  Our action today is just the first step in that process, and, if last 
year is any indication, we have a lot of work ahead of us after today's 
votes.
  Each of the four alternatives considered today is itself the product 
of compromise and accommodation. I would venture to guess that no 
Member of this body will agree with every provision in any of them.
  While I disagree with certain of its techniques to achieve budget 
saving, I voted for the so-called coalition budget in frank protest to 
several aspects of the Republican proposal, particularly its 
elimination of direct student lending. In addition, the coalition 
budget best reflects my concerns that reforms in the areas of health 
care and welfare remain prudent and fair and that the Federal 
commitment to education in general is honored.
  The committee resolution may be an acceptable starting point for 
budget discussions, but I would place my party on notice that I can be 
expected in the authorization and appropriations process to object to 
elimination of the direct student loan program and any cuts in 
education. I also have doubts about the case for elimination the 
Department of Commerce, although reform of its functions and merger 
with the Special Trade Representatives', Office may be in order.
  While the hard work remains ahead, it is crucial that the goal of a 
balanced budget be advanced, but in such a way as to ensure fairness 
for all.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my opposition to the 
pending resolution. In an echo of last year's dysfunctional priorities, 
the majority has once again chosen to balance the budget on the backs 
of the poor, children, and the elderly.
  The Republicans refer to this as an honest budget. But I do not 
believe they are being honest with the American people. They claim to 
be helping working families by reducing their tax burden. Instead, 
their budget cuts the earned income tax credit by $20 billion. This 
action would raise taxes on more than 6 million working families. The 
resolution also cuts capital gains taxes for the wealthy by $176 
billion. It seems clear to me that this resolution is not a family tax 
relief as the Republicans refer to it, but a family tax burden.
  They claim to shift power out of Washington back to neighborhoods, 
communities, and people. But their resolution cuts welfare spending by 
$12 billion over President Clinton's balanced budget and gives no 
details of how neighborhoods, communities, and people are supposed to 
deal with poor children who are lacking the basic necessities of life.
  The Republicans claim to give States authority to improve Medicaid 
and save Medicare from bankruptcy. However the truth is that this 
authority to improve comes in the form of a repeal of Federal 
enforcement of nursing home quality standards which have, by the way, 
dramatically improved the quality of nursing home care. Elderly would 
no longer be safeguarded from the use of restraints, drugs, or other 
poor quality care.
  There are about 166,000 of my constituents in El Paso who are 
eligible for Medicaid. Of those eligible, approximately 22,000 aged and 
disabled use Medicaid for nursing home and in-house care or community 
based care. There are 826 nursing home recipients in El Paso as well.
  The Republican savior of Medicare takes the form of more cuts to the 
program. The budget resolution cuts Medicare spending by $167 billion. 
They have achieved this reduction with deep cuts in payments to the 
hospitals and home health providers that serve beneficiaries. This 
jeopardizes both quality of care and access to health services. Their 
$167 billion cut would result in insufficient funded hospitals that are 
unable to keep up with cost. There are approximately 60,000 Medicare 
beneficiaries in El Paso. El Paso hospitals would have to drastically 
cut services and staffing. For example, El Paso's Thomason General 
Hospital predicts the effects of the cuts to be: reduction of staff by 
as much as 992 positions; clinics would be open only 2.5 days a week it 
would eliminate Level One Trauma services; and it would reduce all of 
the outpatient services.
  The Republicans also claim to shift control of education out of 
Washington. In reality, education is once again under the budgetary ax. 
This proposal seeks to eliminate the direct student loan program, 
affecting over 2.5 million students and cutting nearly $4.5 billion 
over 6 years. There are also a number of substantial cuts and 
terminations in discretionary education spending, including an 
elimination of the Goals 2000 and bilingual and immigrant education.
  The termination of the bilingual education program will be 
devastating to El Paso. In fiscal year 1996 El Paso received $661,246 
in bilingual education grants. Losing this source of funding would put 
an enormous burden on our schools.
  Our immigrant population is growing, and the vast majority of these 
immigrants are from Asia and Latin America. if we capitalize upon their 
linguistic abilities, we can ensure that young immigrants and the 
children of immigrants will be a valuable asset to our national 
competitiveness in the global economy. If we fail to adequately fund 
bilingual and immigrant education, we will set up many children for 
failure and lose the benefits of their valuable linguistic skills.
  In the long run, the result will be that many of our young immigrants 
and their children will be able to contribute fully to the future 
stability of our economy. I do not believe that neglecting the needs of 
a portion of our population that speaks English as a second language is 
sound policy. If we do not provide adequate funding for this program 
now, we will pay heavily in the future.
  Terminating funds for the Goals 2000 program would interrupt 
statewide school reform plans which set higher academic standards for 
all students. The elimination of almost $400 million in resources for 
schools will end ongoing state and local education reform efforts 
affecting 9 million students and terminate 40 percent resource centers. 
This termination would effectively cut 351 students and 14 teachers in 
the El Paso area from this program.
  For the preceding reasons, I do not support this resolution. It 
continues the Republican policy of catering to the wealthy and 
neglecting working families, the elderly, and the poor. It will be 
devastating to El Paso and our Nation as a whole.
  Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the budget resolution offered 
by the Republican majority. The Republican majority has once again done 
a bad job of putting together this most basic budget blueprint. Like 
last year, this resolution is a product of closed-door meetings with 
party leaders, pollsters, and lobbyists for multinational corporations, 
instead of a meaningful accounting of the needs of average working 
Americans and senior citizens.
  This resolution is particularly deceptive and disingenuous because if 
the Congress follows this budget resolution, the American people will 
feel its harsh effects only after the November elections. The proposal 
will needlessly put us on another collision course with the President 
that could lead to new Government shutdowns and numerous stopgap 
spending measures. I have no doubt that the resolution's proposals will 
hurt seniors living on fixed incomes, middle-class and low-income 
families, and make it more difficult to ever balance the Federal 
budget. Indeed, while the bill is supposed to help the Republican party 
appear kinder and gentler to the American people as November draws 
near, there is little that is kind or gentle about this bill.
  We must do better. Congress needs to put forth in this budget 
resolution a clear and honest vision of the future--one that says the 
Federal Government can work more efficiently and effectively, while 
also helping to empower individuals and working families to succeed. 
The Republican resolution offers no such hope.
  I am fully prepared to support a budget plan which is balanced in 7 
years using Congressional Budget Office numbers, as required by the 
bipartisan balanced budget agreement. Unfortunately, this legislation 
is neither bipartisan nor balanced. A better balanced budget plan would 
integrate the following principles into a new budget blueprint for the 
future.


                          RESPECT PAST SUCCESS

  Not surprisingly, the Republican majority in Congress is doing 
everything it can to ignore the tremendous deficit reduction success of 
President Clinton and the previous Democratic Congress. The Federal 
budget deficit has been cut in half since 1992, the last year of the 
Bush administration. Having fallen 4 years in a row, the deficit is now 
at its lowest level as a percentage of the economy since 1979.
  To help achieve this deficit reduction success, hundreds of Federal 
programs have been cut or eliminated, the Federal work force has been 
reduced by 200,000 workers, and 16,000 pages of Federal rules and 
regulations have been eliminated. All of this was accomplished as a 
result of President Clinton's 1993 deficit reduction plan enacted into 
law without a single Republican vote in either the House or Senate.
  Still we are only way to a balanced budget. More can and must be done 
to continue to improve our fiscal condition and economy overall. The 
Republican majority needs to be reminded that we are not starting from 
scratch. Democrats have already proved that the budget deficit can be 
substantially reduced on a careful, considerate, and orderly basis. A 
radical transformation of the budget is unwarranted and unnecessary.
  Unlike this budget resolution, therefore, we do not need to endanger 
critical programs

[[Page H5258]]

which promote the well-being of the neediest Americans--such as 
children and the elderly. Nor, do we need to eliminate programs which 
promote economic growth, job creation, and the competitiveness of the 
United States. We certainly do not need to weaken programs which help 
middle-class Americans retrain after losing jobs to unfair 
international competition and which educate their children to prepare 
for a rapidly changing economy.


              FORGET TAX CUTS UNTIL THE BUDGET IS BALANCED

  Balancing the budget is difficult enough without tax cuts siphoning 
off desperately needed revenue. Both the $176 billion tax cut called 
for in this budget resolution and the $117 billion cut proposed in the 
President's budget will make it more difficult to balance the budget. 
If we would forget tax cuts, we could balance the budget sooner and in 
a less disruptive way. That would be better in the long run for our 
economy and average working Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, nobody likes taxes. We all believe we would be happier 
with a little more of our own money in our pockets. But at what cost? 
Should we risk not balancing the budget because some want to provide a 
short-sighted, election-year gift to taxpayers instead of waiting to 
provide tax cuts after the budget is balanced. My parents raised me to 
believe that you couldn't have dessert until you have eaten your 
vegetables. Republicans want to eat dessert first in return for a 
promise to eat their vegetables later. Common sense tells us that is a 
bad idea.
  I truly believe that average working Americans are more than willing 
to forgo a Federal tax cut today if it means the Federal Government 
will be able to get its act together and balance the budget without 
hurting them in the long term.
  Both the Republican majority and the President are wrong on tax cuts. 
If balancing the budget is our primary goal, tax cuts should be made 
contingent on balancing the budget first.


                        attack corporate welfare

  The Republican budget resolution proposes to cut only $26 billion in 
corporate subsidies and tax breaks. This is a step in the right 
direction, and the Republican majority should be applauded for putting 
forward proposals in this area. But the cuts represent only the tip of 
the iceberg.
  President Clinton has proposed significantly more in corporate 
welfare savings--some $54 billion. And, independent groups across the 
ideological spectrum have proposed tens of billions of dollars more. 
The conservative CATO Institute found $85 billion in corporate welfare 
encompassed in 125 programs. The Progressive Policy Institute 
identified $265 billion in potential savings spread across 120 
programs. Clearly, a much greater level of savings in corporate welfare 
subsidies and tax breaks can be found for this budget resolution.
  For example, I have been fighting for many years to eliminate what I 
believe to be a huge tax loophole in the federal tax system favoring 
foreign corporations operating in our country. The tax system permits 
foreign companies to overcharge for goods they provide to subsisdiares 
in the United States, which effectively reduces the subsidiary's tax 
liability. This activity, commonly referred to as ``transfer pricing,'' 
may result in annual lost revenue to the Federal Government of as much 
as $33 billion, according to at least one estimate. I have introduced 
legislation to help address this problem and I would again urge the 
Republican majority to integrate my proposal into this budget 
resolution.
  Corporations should shoulder a greater portion of the funding burden 
of our Government. In 1945, corporations contributed 35 percent of 
budget revenues. That share is down to 11 percent today, more than a 
two-thirds reduction. Instead of cutting taxes for wealthy stockholders 
and profitable corporations under this budget resolution, we should do 
more to reduce inefficient and unfair subsidies and tax breaks which 
place greater burdens on average working taxpayers.


                       don't weaken good programs

  Medicare has clearly been one of the most successful programs of the 
Federal Government. In tandem with Social Security, Medicare has 
dramatically reduced the poverty rate among elderly Americans and 
increased overall quality of life. This is no time to be making 
unwarranted and damaging changes to the program.
  Though the budget resolution represents an improvement from the 
Republican budget proposals on Medicare last year, the cuts are still 
excessive. We can certainly find limited savings from hospitals and 
medical equipment suppliers, as has been done in the past and proposed 
by the President this year. however, if we go too far with such cuts, 
small hospitals will close and the quality of health care will drop, 
especially in areas like mine which are outside major metropolitan 
centers. The Republican proposals on Medicare must still be moderated 
significantly.
  Many seniors want to see a greater emphasis on reducing waste, fraud, 
and abuse in the Medicare program. I agree. The President has just 
completed the first year of a major new effort to crack down on waste, 
fraud, and abuse which has netted $43 million from Medicare programs so 
far this year. We need to build on this effort.
  The budget proposals for Medicaid are also cause for great concern. 
While Medicaid is commonly known as the medical program for low-income 
families, few realize how important the program is for senior citizens. 
In Pennsylvania, the care of 64 percent of nursing home patients is 
Medicaid funded. I am worried that the excessive cuts for Medicaid 
proposed under the Republican budget resolution will increase the cost 
of nursing home and medical care to seniors and their families.
  Programs to protect the environment and our natural resources have 
also had tremendous success over the past 25 years. Our air and water 
has gotten cleaner, and our national parks have been protected from 
adverse development and exploitation. Unfortunately, this budget 
resolution proposes a 26-percent cut on spending for natural resource 
and environmental programs. Given the urgent need to address 
environmental problems in northeastern Pennsylvania, such as numerous 
Superfund sites and coal-damaged lands spread across this region, I am 
greatly concerned about such cuts.
  In addition, Mr. Speaker, the meager amounts of money our country 
spends on economic development each year has brought great hope to so 
many smaller communities in our country, including those in my region. 
The Economic Development Administration [EDA], for example, has 
provided money to build new buildings and create hundreds of new jobs 
in Nanticoke, Wilkes-Barre, and Hazleton, PA. These buildings now serve 
as essential anchors for local economic revival and bring in local, 
State, and Federal tax dollars far in excess of the original Federal 
investment. However, this budget resolution proposes to eliminate the 
EDA and its successful programs over the next 4 years. Eliminating this 
agency will leave small communities with few places to turn to for 
economic development assistance. Certainly, eliminating this agency and 
cutting other similar economic development programs are among the worst 
ideas in this budget resolution.
  Another excellent program which deserves mention is the earned-income 
tax credit [EITC] program. Changes to the EITC proposed by President 
Clinton in 1993, and enacted by Congress, provided needed tax relief 
for working Americans. In Pennsylvania, the expanded credit for 1996 
will give low-income, working families an average additional tax break 
of $940 per year, and working individuals $240 per year. This budget 
resolution rejects the EITC as an effective tax relief and work-
promotion program, by cutting it $26 billion. If the proposal is 
enacted, low-income working individuals and families who choose work 
over welfare will see their taxes increase. if anything, the EITC 
should be expanded, not cut.


                      eliminate wasteful spending

  Although the need to eliminate wasteful spending seems clear, the 
Republican majority has actually promoted new wasteful spending in this 
budget resolution while forgetting about obvious spending cut targets. 
For example, the resolution proposes serious cuts in education, 
including spending on libraries and job training programs, but expands 
unnecessary programs for the Defense Department. In fact, the budget 
resolution provides $12.8 billion more than the Department of Defense 
[DOD] asked for in its request to the Congress, even after DOD was 
given an additional $7 billion more than requested last year.
  Mr. Speaker, I find it amazing that the Republican majority is 
perfectly willing to cut deeply into so many good federal programs, but 
greatly increase spending on additional weapons. Our country is no 
longer faced with the possibility of a major nuclear attack, yet 
Republicans want to spend 30 percent, or $860 million, more than 
requested on national missile defense programs. The budget also 
proposes to spend $504 million in excess of DOD's request for another 
nuclear submarine and $305 million more for fighter aircraft. We simply 
do not need, and cannot afford, such unnecessary excess in the defense 
budget.
  In 1993, I proposed to the Congress a list of proposed spending cuts 
totaling $213 billion over 5 years. Many of the cuts have been enacted, 
and a number of the programs I proposed for elimination are no longer 
in place. Indeed, we have made much progress on eliminating wasteful 
spending.
  But many large and small wasteful programs continue to be funded in 
the proposed Republican budget. One good example of a wasteful small 
program is the National Endowment for Democracy [NED]. NED will spend 
$32 million on taxpayer supported projects to supposedly foster 
democracy around the world. NED, however, is run by U.S. political 
parties, business interest groups, and labor unions. As a result, the 
participants have promoted not only the worthy goal of democratic 
participation, but also taxpayer funded training in American-style 
lobbying for business and

[[Page H5259]]

labor interests, as well as the training of foreign media. We simply 
should not dedicate scarce resources through private organizations for 
such purposes.
  The budget resolution also does nothing to cut wasteful subsidy 
programs to timber and mining companies. Our country will forgo $700 
million over the next 5 years providing below-cost timber sales and 
constructing logging road networks. We will receive virtually nothing 
for mining of public lands, even though mining companies will earn 
billions of dollars on mineral sales. Such subsidies are wasteful, and 
are unfair to hard-working taxpayers.
  Mr. Speaker, I would urge the House to reject this budget resolution 
and to work to enact a genuinely bipartisan plan which incorporates the 
fundamental principles I have discussed. We need a budget plan which is 
fair and equitable, which attacks irresponsible spending and embraces 
good programs, and which drops reckless tax cuts. The American people 
need and deserve much better from this Congress.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of House 
Concurrent Resolution 178, the fiscal year 1997 budget resolution.
  Over a year ago, I stood on the floor in support of this essential 
effort to balance the Federal budget. Since then, doing so has been my 
No. 1 priority as a Member of Congress.
  I am pleased to be able to say that over the past year we have taken 
the first step toward a balanced budget. We have reduced the deficit 
and cut Government spending by $43 billion.
  Today, I stand in support of taking the next step forward toward 
securing a better future for our children and for our country. This 
budget sets reasonable priorities for Federal Government spending, 
returns money to the pockets of hardworking American citizens and 
returns important decisionmaking power where it belongs--out of the 
hands of the Washington bureaucracy and into the hands of States, 
municipalities, and families. This resolution balances our country's 
economic needs with our commitment to our veterans, seniors, students, 
and hard-working taxpayers.
  House Concurrent Resolution 178 reforms welfare and Medicaid, and 
preserves, protects, and strengthens Medicare for millions of older 
Americans. We make these reforms while increasing spending on all three 
of these programs, improving services and saving $211 billion over 6 
years.
  This budget protects our Nation's natural resources and ensures a 
clean and healthy environment. The bill recommends increasing funding 
for actual Superfund cleanups by $700 million. In New Jersey and around 
the country, this means that sites would get cleaned up more quickly 
and less time and money would be spent on litigation and overhead. This 
bill also provides more funding for our National Park System and safe 
drinking water. I strongly support this effort to assure Americans have 
cleaner air and water, greater access to outdoor public recreation, and 
to protect wilderness and historic areas.
  Safe homes, streets, and communities are also a priority under our 
budget proposal and we recommend a net spending increase of $9.3 
billion, including increased spending for the violent crime reduction 
trust fund. We have focused over the past year on making our streets 
safer, improving law enforcement, and making commonsense reforms to our 
Department of Justice. This budget continues that focus and provides 
resources to carry out these priorities.
  The House Republican budget also renews America's commitment to those 
who have served and those who continue to serve our country in the 
armed services. As a veteran myself, I am pleased that under our budget 
we were able to increase veterans spending to almost $40 billion and 
reject the Clinton administration's proposed cuts in veteran's medical 
care, VA hospitals, medical research, and the National Cemetery System.

  This budget also continues our efforts to reduce the size of our 
Federal Government. Last year, we greatly reduced the size and spending 
of Congress. This year, we greatly reduced the size and spending of 
Congress. This year and over the next 6 years House Concurrent 
Resolution 178 envisions savings of $5 billion by imposing a moratorium 
on constructing and acquiring Federal buildings, reducing overhead, and 
reducing funding for the Executive Office of the White House by 15 
percent.
  Finally, unlike other proposals House Concurrent Resolution 178 
returns money to the hands of the American people while reducing the 
deficit. Our proposal eliminates corporate tax loopholes, provides an 
adoption tax credit, and contains a $500-per-child tax credit. This 
resolution provides $122 billion in permanent tax relief, of which the 
majority will go to taxpayers earning between $30,000 and $75,000 
annually.
  I am pleased to support this 6-year budget resolution that makes 
commonsense spending decisions, sets priorities, continues adequate 
levels of spending on important Federal programs to protect our health, 
safety, environment. This budget resolution is true to our commitment 
to balance the Federal budget and live within our means. I urge my 
colleagues to support this resolution.
  Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of 
the plan to balance the Federal budget by the year 2002. I rise today 
because I am committed to balancing the Federal budget to free future 
generations of Americans from the shackles of an enormous national 
debt.
  Mr. Speaker, this Nation has not had a balanced Federal budget in a 
generation. Since that last balanced budget, budget deficits have 
climbed to over $100 billion, topping $300 billion along the way, and 
the public national debt has ballooned to $5 trillion. That represents 
a debt of nearly $19,000 for every man, woman, and child in the United 
States. The annual interest on the debt alone is over $235 billion. Two 
hundred thirty-five billion dollars that must be spent to service the 
debt. Two hundred thirty-five billion dollars that cannot be spent on 
educating our children, for providing for our veterans, and returning 
poor Americans to work. Mr. Chairman, the time has come to stop the 
failed tax and spend policies of the past, and return fiscal sanity to 
this Nation.
  A balanced budget should provide a smaller Federal Government by 
slowing its growth. The balanced budget plan supported by the 
Republican majority increases Federal spending by $2.5 trillion between 
now and the year 2002. Our balanced budget increases the money 
available for student loans. House Concurrent Resolution 178 allows 
increases in Medicare spending while ensuring its solvency for future 
generations. The Republican plan curbs a bloated, inefficient Federal 
bureaucracy, removes decision making from inside the Washington beltway 
and returns it to the States, and ensures the future of this Nation for 
our children.
  A balanced budget should adopt tax policies that allow Americans to 
keep more of their take-home pay and allow investors and corporations 
to create jobs and stimulate economic growth. Our budget enacts a $500-
per-child tax credit, eliminates the marriage penalty, provides a tax 
credit for adoption expenses, and creates new savings mechanisms, 
American families will be able to keep what they earn. Families also 
will save more for their own and their children's future. By allowing 
families to keep more of what they earn, our balanced budget will boost 
this Nation's sagging national savings average. Greater savings means 
more dollars in the economy for job creation and economic growth.
  Coupling increased savings with a capital gains tax reduction and a 
reduction or elimination of growth-impeding corporate taxation, a 
balanced budget will provide the stimulus for economic growth and job 
creation. In a time when the Nation's economy is growing at an annual 
rate of less than 3 percent and many Americans are faced with increased 
job insecurity, House Concurrent Resolution 178 will provide a boom for 
the economy and create millions of new jobs. As our budget moves toward 
balance, the Federal Government will need to borrow less from the 
national savings pool. Corporations will have access to more money to 
invest in capital improvements which will boost efficiency while 
lowering operating costs. Lower costs allow corporations to create new 
jobs and raise wages.
  Mr. Speaker, leading economic experts have concluded that once the 
Federal budget begins to come into balance, interest rates will begin 
to drop. On a mortgage of $100,000, a 2-percent drop in interest rates 
will save the mortgage holder $2,161 on interest payments for each year 
of a fixed-rate, 30-year mortgage. On a student loan of $11,000, a 2-
percent interest rate drop would save the student $2,167 over the life 
of the average 10-year loan. On a $15,000 car loan, the rate drop would 
save the loan holder $180 each year of a 5-year loan.

  Mr. Speaker, we must balance the Federal budget. We must shrink the 
size and scope of the inflated Washington bureaucracy and return power 
to the State and local level, closer to the American people. We must 
reform the Medicare system to ensure its solvency for future 
generations. We must reform the failed welfare system that rewards 
inactivity and discourages work. We must allow Americans to keep more 
of what they earn by providing tax cuts and promoting increased 
savings. We must allow businesses to create jobs and stimulate economic 
growth by providing pro-growth tax incentives.
  The economic benefits that are derived from balancing the Federal 
budget are enormous. The time has come to end the tax and spend, Big 
Government ways of the Congress. A balanced budget will ensure the 
fiscal prosperity of this Nation now and provide a economically sound 
future for our children. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, today, I must express my profound 
disappointment at

[[Page H5260]]

the majority's inability to address the need to end the U.S. dependence 
on imported oil.
  Renewable energy development is our best hope of moving away from 
foreign oil, and moving toward environmentally sound energy choices. 
Support for the Department of Energy's Energy Efficiency and Renewable 
Energy Programs is vital for our national energy security, particularly 
as renewables become increasingly cost-competitive and effective.
  In addition, DOE's Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Programs 
support 45,000 jobs nationwide.
  It is inconceivable to me that the majority would phase out our 
investment in renewables. The long-term cost savings renewables promise 
should make these programs a national priority, not a target for short-
term budgetary gains.
  I urge the Congress to reject the budget resolution's treatment of 
renewable energy. We should restore and reaffirm our national 
commitment to renewable research and development.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Norwood) having assumed the chair, Mr. Camp, Chairman of the Committee 
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that 
Committee, having had under consideration the concurrent resolution (H. 
Con. Res. 178) establishing the congressional budget for the U.S. 
Government for fiscal year 1997 and setting forth appropriate budgetary 
levels for fiscal years 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002, pursuant to 
House Resolution 435, he reported the concurrent resolution back to the 
House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the concurrent resolution.
  Pursuant to clause 7, rule XV, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device and there were--yeas 226, 
nays 195, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 179]

                               YEAS--226

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greene (UT)
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Parker
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--195

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Collins (MI)
     Ehlers
     Hayes
     Jacobs
     Lewis (CA)
     Manzullo
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Packard
     Paxon
     Quillen
     Talent

                              {time}  1648

  Mr. CHAPMAN changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the concurrent resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                          ____________________